TRIYAMBAK S. HEGDE versus SRIPAD

Citation: [2021] 9 S.C.R. 189 · Decided: 23-09-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
189
TRIYAMBAK S. HEGDE
v.
SRIPAD
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 849-850 of 2011)
SEPTEMBER 23, 2021
[N. V. RAMANA, CJI, SURYA KANT AND
A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.]
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – ss. 118 and 139 – The
case of the appellant was that the respondent approached him to sell
his house – Pursuant to which an agreement dated 06.06.1996 was
executed by the respondent while receiving the advance amount of
Rs.3,50,000/- out of the total agreed price of Rs.4,00,000/- –
Subsequently, appellant found that the house was in respondent’s
father’s name and the respondent had no authority to sell the same
– Appellant demanded return of Rs.3,50,000/- – The respondent
instead of paying the entire amount, issued a cheque for sum of
Rs.1,50,000/- – When cheque was presented in the bank, it was
dishonoured with the endorsement ‘insufficient funds’ – Thereafter,
appellant issued notice to the respondent intimating the dishonorment
of cheque, which was not replied – Appellant filed complaint and
sought prosecution of the respondent u/s. 138 of the N.I. Act –
Judicial Magistrate, first class (JMFC) convicted respondent and
sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months and to
pay fine of Rs.2,00,000/- – The appeals filed before the Sessions
Judge were dismissed – Before the High Court, the respondent
contended that a relative of the appellant was junior in the office
of his advocate and due to such dominant position, the respondent
was made to sign on the agreement and the cheque though the money
was not paid – Proceeding on the basis of this contention, the High
Court set aside the conviction of the respondent – On appeal, held:
Since the signature on the agreement and more particularly the
dishonored cheque was not disputed, the presumption as provided
in law u/ss. 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act had arisen – Such
presumption would remain till it is rebutted – The contention of the
respondent that a relative of the appellant was the junior of his
advocate and he has used his dominant position to secure the
[2021] 9 S.C.R. 189
189
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
190
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 9 S.C.R.
signature on the cheque, has absolutely no explanation whatsoever
to indicate the reason for which such necessity arose for him to
secure the signatures of the respondent, if there was no transaction
whatsoever between the parties – That apart, the said story was put
forth for the first time before the High Court – The respondent had
not replied to the notice intimating dishonor of cheque and put forth
such contention – It was neither raised before the JMFC nor before
the Sessions Judge – Further, there is no explanation as to why such an
advocate was engaged by the respondent to defend himself, whose
junior had used his dominant position to secure his signatures, in
the same case relating to dishonor of cheque – Also, it is difficult to
comprehend as to why a cheque of lesser amount Rs.1,50,000/- was
secured than full amount of Rs.3,50,000/-, if there was use of dominant
position by junior advocate – Keeping all these aspects in view, the
case put forth by the respondent does not satisfy the requirement of
rebuttal even if tested on touchstone of preponderance of probability
– The High Court was not justified in its conclusion – The order of
conviction by JMFC is confirmed – However, the sentence is modified,
the respondent sentenced to pay fine of Rs.2,50,000/- only.
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. From the facts arising in this case and the nature
of the rival contentions, the record would disclose that the
signature on the documents at Exhibits P-6 and P-2 is not disputed.
Exhibit P-2 is the dishonoured cheque based on which the
complaint was filed. From the evidence tendered before the
JMFC, it is clear that the respondent has not disputed the
signature on the cheque. If that be the position, as noted by the
courts below a presumption would arise under Section 139 in favour
of the appellant who was the holder of the cheque. Insofar as the
payment of the amount by the appellant in the context of the
cheque having been signed by the respondent, the presumption
for passing of the consideration would arise as provided under
Section 118(a) of N.I. Act. The said provisions are explicit to the
effect that such presumption would remain, until the contrary is
proved. [Paras 11, 12 and 13][97-D-G; 198-A]
2. In the instant facts, the case put forth was that there was
a transaction between the parties where the respondent had

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.