Kerala High Court
Sree Gokulam Chit & Finance Co.(P) Ltd vs K.M.Kareem on 19 March, 2012
Author: C.T. Ravikumar
Bench: C.T.Ravikumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013/14TH POUSHA 1934
CRL.A.No. 1543 of 2012 ()
-------------------------
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.3.2012
IN CC.2408/2009 of J.M.F.C.-II,THRISSUR
APPELLANT(S)/COMPLAINANT:
----------------------------------
SREE GOKULAM CHIT & FINANCE CO.(P) LTD
HEAD OFFICE 66, ARCOT ROAD, KODAMBAKKAM
CHENNAI-600 024, AND HAVING DIVISIONAL OFFICE
M.G.ROAD, THRISSUR
REPRESENTED BY THE BUSINESS MANAGER, A.SASEEDHARAN
AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.GOPALAN NAIR, VELLIYAT HOUSE
KODANOOT DESOM, THRISSUR.
BY ADV. SRI.K.S.BABU
RESPONDENT(S)/ACCUSED AND STATE:
--------------------------------------------
1. K.M.KAREEM, AGED 51 YEARS
S/O.MUHAMMED, KARAPPAMVEETIL HOUSE, CHALINGAD P.O.
KAIPAMANGALAM, THRISSUR, PIN CODE-680 681.
2. STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.HIMA
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-01-2013, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
==========================
CRL.APPEAL. No.1543 OF 2012
==========================
Dated this the 4th day of January, 2013
JUDGMENT
This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19.3.2012 in C.C.No.2408 of 2009 of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Thrissur. The appellant was the complainant and the first respondent herein was the accused, therein.
2. The case of the prosecution is as follows:-
The appellant/complainant is a private limited company conducting kuri business. The accused subscribed and auctioned kuri No.G2D/2034/15. Towards repayment of the defaulted amount, the accused issued Ext.P3 cheque bearing No.279323 drawn on Kaipamangalam branch dated 28.3.2009 for a sum of Rs.41,396/-. When presented for encashment, it was dishonoured on the ground of Crl.A.1543/2012 2 insufficiency of funds. Statutory notices were issued to the first respondent/accused and he had not responded despite acknowledging the same. The amount demanded was also not paid. C.C.No.2408 of 2009 was filed by the appellant in the said circumstances.
3. The business manager of the company through whom the complaint was preferred on behalf of the complainant, got examined as PW1. Exts.P1 to 9 were marked. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused/the first respondent was examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The first respondent did not adduce any evidence, but, got marked Exts.D1 and D2 through PW1. After scrutiny of the evidence, the learned Magistrate found that the appellant herein had failed to discharge the burden to prove execution of Ext.P3 cheque. In the light of the materials on record, twin points were formulated for consideration viz., whether the accused executed Ext.P3 cheque in discharge of the legally enforcible liability towards the complainant and whether the Crl.A.1543/2012 3 accused had committed the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. After considering them in the light of the evidence on record they were answered in favour of the defence viz., the first respondent. Consequently, the first respondent/accused was acquitted under section 255(1) of the Cr.P.C. This appeal has been preferred against the said judgment in C.C.No.2408 of 2009 of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Thrissur.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that going by the admission of the first respondent of his signature in Ext.P3 cheque, the learned Magistrate was not justified in holding that the appellant had failed to prove the execution of Ext.P3 cheque. It is further contended that in view of the decision in Gopakumar v. B. Anil Kumar (2011 (3) KHC 850), once the signature in a cheque is admitted, the burden is on the accused to prove that the entries made on the cheque were not actually effected by him and there was no execution of such cheque. It is further contended that the appellant Crl.A.1543/2012 4 had succeeded in establishing the fact that there was a legally enforceable debt from the accused and that Ext.P3 cheque was issued by the accused in discharge of the said debt owing to the appellant and according to the appellant it is to prove the same that on his side the business manager was examined as PW1.
5. The complainant filed an affidavit in lieu of chief examination of PW1. In the complaint as also in Ext.P6 lawyer notice, it was stated that the accused was the subscriber to kuri whilst in the proof affidavit deviating from the pleadings, it is stated that the accused was a surety to the kuri transaction in question. In Ext.P9 kuri agreement, accused/first respondent was shown as a surety to the kuri. The learned Magistrate took note of the deviation from the specific pleadings in the complaint as also in Ext.P6 and also found that Ext.P9 could not be said to be a genuine document. It is found that there was a lot of corrections in Ext.P9 agreement and no signatures were put against such corrections to endorse such corrections. As Crl.A.1543/2012 5 already noticed hereinbefore, after a careful scanning of the evidence, the learned Magistrate found that the appellant had failed to prove the execution of Ext.P3 cheque. There can be little doubt that in a proceedings initiated under the provisions of the NI Act, the initial burden lies on the complainant to prove that the cheque in question was executed by the accused. True that once the initial burden is discharged, the presumption under section 118 and 139 of the NI Act is available to the complainant. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as regards the chitty transaction, if blank cheque is issued by the accused, the payee is entitled to make endorsements on the cheque issued with signature of the drawer of the cheque. To drive home the said point, the learned counsel relied on the decision of this Court in Vijender Singh v. Eicher Motors Ltd. and Another reported in 2011 (2) KLD 733. I have carefully considered the dictum laid down in Vijender Singh's case (supra). This Court has not laid down any law therein that merely because the nature of the transaction involved in a particular case is a chitty transaction that Crl.A.1543/2012 6 would dispense with the initial onus to be discharged by a complainant who preferred a complaint under section 138 of the NI Act and when the transaction involved is chitty transaction, the entire burden lies on the accused when once the signature in the cheque in question is admitted. I am afraid I cannot accept the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant. Whatever be the nature of the transaction, when once the complaint is filed under section 138 of the NI Act, the complainant has to discharge the initial burden viz., execution of the cheque in question. There can be no doubt that it is the dishonour of a particular cheque and the consequential failure to effect payment of the amount figured, in the cheque and demanded in the consequential demand notice that makes the concerned accused to face legal consequences. If that be so, the execution of the cheque in question is necessarily to be proved for saddling him with the liability for the dishonour and consequential failure to satisfy the alleged debt. In short, the question to be decided is whether the appellant had succeeded in proving the execution of Ext.P3 cheque. Crl.A.1543/2012 7
6. As already noticed hereinbefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that when once the signature in the cheque is admitted, the burden shifts and it is for the accused to show that it was not executed. I cannot countenance with the said contention in the light of the law laid down in Gopan v. Tonny Varghese (2008(1) KLT 257). This Court held that the fact that the cheque contained the signature of the accused would not mean that the cheque was drawn by the accused as contemplated under section 118 or section 139 of the NI Act. It was further held that when execution of cheque is denied by the accused, it is for the complainant to establish the execution of the cheque in question. When execution is not proved by the complainant presumption under section 139 of the NI Act is not available to him.
7. In this case, admittedly, the first respondent/accused had disputed the execution of the cheque. When once the execution of the Crl.A.1543/2012 8 cheque is disputed necessarily, the execution of the cheque in question to be established by the complainant. The question how the execution of a cheque could be proved was discussed in detail by this Court in Santhi v. Mary Sherly (2011 (3) KHC 22). It was held that like any other document, mere production and making of cheque may only prove that a cheque which contains an order in writing and a signature had come into existence. But it will not further prove that it is created, drawn or executed by the concerned accused. This Court went on to hold that ordinarily, execution of a document in the nature of cheque could be established by proving the handwriting and signature in the document under section 67 of the Evidence Act. It can be proved by examining the person who executed or created the document by writing and signing the same. When such examination is not possible, its execution could be proved by examining the person who witnessed the writing and signing of the document in question. In the absence of direct evidence relating to writing and signing of the document in question, execution may be proved by examining a Crl.A.1543/2012 9 person who is qualified and competent to express his opinion. In this case, admittedly PW1 did not depose that he had witnessed the execution of Ext.P3 cheque. The appellant could not bring to my attention anything to show the contra position. Admittedly, no expert opinion was obtained in this case. When execution is disputed and when it is not proved, certainly the complainant could have let in evidence to prove the original transaction. The admitted case that in the complaint as also in Ext.P6 lawyer notice, the specific case of the complainant was that accused was a subscriber to kuri No.G2D/2034/15. Further it is the case that he subscribed and auctioned the said kuri. In the affidavit filed in lieu of chief examination, the complainant deviated from the specific case and stated that the accused/first respondent was a surety to the said kuri. Exts.D1 and D2 were got marked through PW1 and PW1 would admit the existence of Exts.D1 and D2. Admittedly, there is no serious dispute with respect to Exts.D1 and D2. As already noticed hereinbefore, the presumption available under sections 118 or 139 of Crl.A.1543/2012 10 the NI Act would be available to the complainant only if the execution of cheque in question is proved. It is also to be noted that there is no case for the appellant that the execution of Ext.P1 was proved by PW1 so as to discharge the burden statutorily cast upon the complainant. The contention is that the cheque in question was issued to the company. In the context of the case, it is relevant to note that it is the settled position of law that an accused is entitled to rebut the presumption. In fact, it is to rebut the presumption, if at all it is available, that Exts.D1 and D2 were got marked through PW1 and as already noticed, no serious challenge was raised against Exts.D1 or D2. They would go to show that the first respondent was in fact a subscriber to the kuri conducted by the complainant and there was no liability to be discharged by him in respect of said kuri in which he was a subscriber. Ext.D1 would, admittedly reveal that there was a kuri in which the first respondent was the subscriber and an amount of Rs.6400/- was paid to the complainant company on 5.6.2009 and that the transaction was then closed. The case of the first respondent was Crl.A.1543/2012 11 that Ext.P3 is the cheque given by him as security to the company for the purpose of Ext.D1 kuri. The definite defence of the first respondent was that he did not subscribe the kuri in question and the documents were forged using the documents which he gave to the complainant in respect of kuri referred to in Ext.D1. Ext.D2 was the daily collection card. PW1 admitted before the trial court that Exts.D1 and D2 were issued by the complainant company and Ext.D1 receipt pertains to Ext.D2 daily collection card issued from Thrippayar Branch of the complainant company. The finding in the impugned judgment, based on the evidence, that Ext.D1 receipt was also issued from Thrippayar Branch and issued in the name of the first respondent/accused is also not disputed. Hence, the trial court found that the case of the first respondent that he had subscribed to a kuri which is stated in Exts.D1 and D2 were proved. In this context, the deviation of the appellant from the case in the complaint as also in Ext.P6 lawyer notice in the proof affidavit assumes relevance. During the cross examination of PW1, he deposed that the statement to the Crl.A.1543/2012 12 contrary in the complaint as also in Ext.P6 lawyer notice was only a clerical error and in fact, the accused was a surety to kuri transaction. The reasoning in paragraph 8 of the judgment of the trial court dealing with the circumstances that creates doubt regarding the genuineness of Ext.P9 kuri agreement also assume relevance in the contextual situation. These circumstances that put the alleged execution of Ext.P3 cheque dealt with in paragraph 9 of the judgment taking into account the aforementioned circumstances and the conclusions arrived at by the trial court cannot be said to be perverse. When Ext.P9 agreement was held not admissible in evidence and the appellant failed to show that the said finding of the trial court was unfounded in the absence of any other document to connect the accused with the transaction in question, which fact was also not disputed by the appellant, I do not find any reason to hold that there is strong prima facie evidence to admit this appeal against acquittal. There cannot be any doubt with respect to the position that in a case where there is doubt regarding the genuineness of a document produced by the Crl.A.1543/2012 13 complainant/appellant and in the admitted absence of any other document to connect the accused with the transaction in question the benefit should always go in favour of the accused. Even without looking into those aspects, the question whether the appellant had succeeded in establishing the prima facie case warranting a further probe into the matter can be decided by looking into the question whether the appellant had succeeded in establishing the execution of Ext.P3 cheque. The issue invites a further probe into the matter and a detailed consideration only if a prima facie case is made out that the appellant had succeeded in proving the execution of Ext.P3 cheque. I have already adverted to the settled position of law in the light of the decision in Santhi's case (supra) regarding the manner in which execution of a cheque could be proved. I have also found that the admission of a signature in a cheque would not amount to the admission of the execution of that cheque and further that when once the execution of the cheque in question was disputed by the accused, the onus to discharge the initial burden regarding the execution of the Crl.A.1543/2012 14 cheque is on the complainant. When once it is found that the appellant had failed to prove that initial burden to show that Ext.P3 cheque in question was executed by the complainant and also for the other reasons expatiated above, this appeal is liable to fail. In a case of appeal against acquittal unless a strong prima facie case is not made out the appeal merits no admission. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
C.T. RAVIKUMAR
(JUDGE)
spc/
Crl.A.1543/2012 15
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
JUDGMENT
September,2010
Crl.A.1543/2012 16