Cril. Petition No. 8 of 2015. Case: Moirangthem Hemanta Singh Vs Ningthoujam Biren Singh. Manipur High Court
|Case Number:||Cril. Petition No. 8 of 2015|
|Party Name:||Moirangthem Hemanta Singh Vs Ningthoujam Biren Singh|
|Counsel:||For Appellant: N. Surendrajit, Advocate and For Respondents: H. Ishwarlal, Advocate|
|Judges:||Rakesh Ranjan Prasad, C.J.|
|Issue:||Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 482; Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Sections 138, 139|
|Judgement Date:||January 11, 2017|
|Court:||Manipur High Court|
Rakesh Ranjan Prasad, C.J.
Heard Mr. N. Surendrajit, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. H. Iswarlal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent complainant.
This criminal petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is directed against the order dated 23.2.2015 passed in Cril (C) Case No. 35 of 2015 whereby and whereunder the In-charge Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal West, took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act after recording that prima facie case is made out under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
That order dated 23.2.2015 is under challenge.
Learned counsel appearing for the accused petitioner submits that whatever transaction took place, it took place in between the complainant and Mr. M. Biren Singh the younger brother of the petitioner and thereby the amount was given through Cheque by the complainant to the said M. Biren Singh. However, it has also been alleged that the petitioner, in discharge of the said debt had given the Cheque of Rs. 12 to the complainant which got dishonoured when it was deposited by the complainant. But the fact remains that transaction had taken place in between the petitioner's brother and complainant and thereby the said amount cannot be said to be legally recoverable from the petitioner and thereby a case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act cannot be maintained against the petitioner and hence the Court did commit illegality in taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act against the petitioner.
Learned counsel further submits that it is true that in terms of Section 139 of the NI Act presumption would be there in favour of the holder that Cheque had been issued in discharge of the debt or other liability but it has clearly been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs Dattatraya G. Hegde: (2008) 4 SCC 54 that section 139 of the NI Act merely raises a presumption in regard to the second aspect of the matter. Existence of legally recoverable debt is not a matter of presumption under Section 139 of the Act. It merely raises a presumption in favour of a holder of the cheque that the same has been issued for discharge of any debt or other liability. By referring to the aforesaid proposition, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since the transaction was there in between the complainant and petitioner's brother the...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL