UTTAM RAM versus DEVINDER SINGH HUDAN & ANR.

UTTAM RAM versus DEVINDER SINGH HUDAN & ANR.

The statutory presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that the cheque was issued for consideration remains unrebutted when the accused fails to adduce any credible evidence to the contrary, and mere contradictions in quantity or type of goods or self-serving denials are inadequate. Consequently, the respondent is guilty under s.138 for dishonour of cheque, and the acquittal by lower courts is unsustainable in law.

Parties
Appellant: Uttam Ram; Respondent: Devinder Singh Hudan; Amicus Curiae: Ms. Liz Mathew
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
17 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Dismissal of Complaint Under S. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 by the Trial Court, Upheld by High Court; Supreme Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside; respondent convicted under s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Legal Topics
Negotiable Instruments, Dishonour of Cheque, Statutory Presumption, Burden of Proof
Criminal Law Commercial Law Negotiable Instruments Dishonour of Cheque Statutory Presumption Burden of Proof

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Uttam Ram

Appellant

Devinder Singh Hudan

Respondent

Ms. Liz Mathew

Amicus Curiae

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Dismissal of Complaint Under S. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 by the Trial Court, Upheld by High Court; Supreme Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused rebutted the statutory presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 that the cheque was issued for consideration?
  2. 2 Whether the acquittal of the accused based on discrepancies in cartons/material/rate was legally valid when the debt amount was crystallized in writing?

Ratio Decidendi

The statutory presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that the cheque was issued for consideration remains unrebutted when the accused fails to adduce any credible evidence to the contrary, and mere contradictions in quantity or type of goods or self-serving denials are inadequate. Consequently, the respondent is guilty under s.138 for dishonour of cheque, and the acquittal by lower courts is unsustainable in law.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside; respondent convicted under s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Orders

  • Respondent to pay Rs.10,77,712/- as fine (twice the cheque amount of Rs.5,38,856/-).
  • Respondent to pay litigation cost of Rs.1,00,000/- within three months.