Summary
The Court refused special leave against concurrent convictions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused admitted receiving the money and signing the cheques, and a bare plea that the money was a joint film investment, unsupported by evidence, did not rebut the Section 139 presumption or shift the onus to the complainant. Because the five convictions arose from one transaction between the same parties, the Court directed that the sentences run concurrently.
Issues
- Whether the accused rebutted the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act by pleading that the amounts were invested in a jointly produced film, when the complainant had not produced accounts or Income Tax Returns.
- Whether the sentences in the five complaints, arising from the same transaction, should run concurrently.
Provisions considered
- Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881Concurrent convictions for dishonour of five cheques, returned for insufficient funds and issued to repay a loan with interest, were upheld; the money was a legally enforceable debt even on the accused's own version. (¶¶ 4, 9, 13)
- Section 139 (read with Section 118), Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881Signing and issuing the cheques was not denied, so the presumption arose. The accused led no evidence, oral or documentary, for the joint-venture defence, so the presumption stood and the onus never shifted to the complainant. (¶¶ 8, 11, 12)
Held
- Simply putting forward a counter-version as a probable defence does not shift the onus to the complainant in a Section 138 case; the defence has to be backed by oral or documentary evidence. (¶ 8)
- The complainant's failure to prove the source of the loan through accounts or tax returns does not by itself defeat the claim where signing and issuing the cheques is admitted and no evidence shows that the complainant lacked the capacity to lend. (¶ 8)
- As the accused admitted receiving the money and only claimed it was given for a joint film production, the amount was still a legally enforceable debt they had to repay. If the money had really been a joint investment, they had no explanation for issuing cheques that included interest. (¶¶ 9, 10)
- Since the complainant's witness firmly denied any joint venture and receipt of the money was not disputed, the onus stayed with the accused to show that the cheques were not for a debt legally due; they failed to displace the Section 139 presumption. (¶¶ 11, 12)
- Concurrent findings of fact are rarely disturbed under Article 136, and special leave was refused. (¶ 13)
- Where separate convictions are recorded on the same date between the same parties for the same transaction paid in tranches, the Court may in its judicial discretion direct that the sentences run concurrently, applying the single-transaction principle. (¶ 14)
Result
Special leave petitions dismissed. The six-month sentences in the five cases were directed to run concurrently; compensation unpaid within six months is to be recovered as a public debt and paid to the complainant; petitioner no. 2's exemption from surrender was withdrawn and he was directed to surrender within three weeks.