VIJAY versus LAXMAN AND ANR.

Citation: [2013] 4 S.C.R. 80 · Decided: 07-02-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2013] 4 S.C.R. 80 
VIJAY 
v. 
LAXMAN AND ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No.261 of 2013) 
FEBRUARY 7, 2013 
[T.S. THAKUR AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] 
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - ss. 118(a), 138 and 
139 - Cheque issued by respondent in favour of appellant -
C Dishonoured on account of insufficiency of funds - Complaint 
by appellant uls. 138 alleging that the cheque represented 
repayment of personal loan granted for two months - D(Jfence 
version of accused-respondent that the cheque was given 
merely as a security deposit in terms of a prevailing trade 
o practice and not towards repayment of any loan; that even 
after eventual settlement of accounts between the parties, the 
cheque was not returned to the respondent, which resulted in, 
altercation between the parties and that subsequently as a 
1 
counter blast the· appellant presented the cheque for 
E encashment - Conviction of appellant by trial Court - High 
Court set aside the conviction - Justification - Held: Justified 
- Appellant failed to establish that the cheque in fact had been 
issued by the respondent towards repayment of personal Joan 
- Absence of any documentary or other evidence in that 
F regard - If the che_que was issued towards repayment of loan 
which was meant to be encashed within two months, it is 
beyond comprehension as to why the cheque was presented 
by the appellant on the same date it was issued - Respondent 
would have had no reason to ask for a loan from the appellant 
G if he had the capacity to discharge the loan amount on the 
date when the cheque had been issued - Besides, the cheque 
was presented on the day following altercation between the 
parties - Also, the complaint lodged does not specify the date 
on which the loan amount was advanced - Nor does the 
H 
80 
VIJAY v. LAXMAN 
81 
complaint indicate the date of its lodgment -
Defence 
A 
succeeded in dislodging the complainant-appellant's case on 
the strength of convincing evidence of rebuttal and thus 
discharged the burden envisaged u/ss. 118 (a) and 139 of the 
N. I. Act - Appellant's case in the realm of grave doubt -
Acquittal of respondent confirmed -
The Banking Public B 
Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instruments Laws 
(Amendment) Act, 1988. 
The respondent supplied milk to the father of the 
appellant who ran a· dairy farm. The appellant lodged 
C 
complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable 
Instruments Act, 1881 contending that the respondent had 
borrowed from him a sum of Rs.1, 15,000/- for his personal 
requirement and towards repayment of the same had 
issued a cheque for an equal amount, but the cheque 
when presented to the bank was dishonoured for D 
'insufficient funds'. 
The respondent admitted the handing over of the 
cheque in favour of the appellant but denied that the same 
was towards repayment of any loan. The respondent 
E 
claimed that according to the prevailing practice the 
appellant took security cheques from all the milk 
suppliers; that it is on this count that the respondent had 
issued the cheque in favour of the appellant which was 
merely by way of amount towards security; that in course 
F 
of settlement of accounts, when respondent asked for 
return of his security cheque, the cheque was not given 
back to the respondent as a result of which an altercation 
took place between the parties due to which the 
respondent lodged a report at the police station on 
G 
13.8.2007 and that subsequently as a counter blast, the 
appellant presented the cheque for encashment merely 
to settle scores with the respondent/milk supplier. 
The trial court convicted the respondent under 
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1981 and 
H 
/ 
82 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 4 S.C.R. 
A sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for one year 
besides imposing upon him a fine of Rs.1,20,000/-. The 
order was upheld by the first appellate court. In criminal 
revision, the High Court accepted the version given by 
the accused-respondent and set aside the order of 
s conviction and sentence of the respondent holding that 
the order suffered from grave miscarriage of justice due 
to non-consideration of the defence evidence of rebuttal 
which demolished the complainant-appellant's case. 
c 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HE.LO; 
Per Gyan Sudha Misra. J .. · 
1 ~1. When ~ cheque is issued by ~ person who has . 
D signed on the cheque and the ·compl~inant reasonably .· 
discharges the burden that the cheque had been issued 
towards a lz

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