SC convicted the accused for cheque dishonouring as he raised his defence first time by cooking up a story before HC

Case Details: Triyambak S. Hegde v. Sripad - [2022] 134 taxmann.com 71 (SC)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• • N.V. Ramana, CJI.
  • Surya Kant and A.S. Bopanna, JJ.
  • Rajesh Inamdar, Ali Asghar Rahim, Shashwat Anand, Ms. Smita Pandey, Ashwin G. Raj, Advs. and Rauf Rahim, AOR for the Appellant. G.V. Chandrasekar, N.K. Verma, Ms. Apeksha D., Advs. and Ms. Anjana Chandrasekar, AOR for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the appellant had paid an advance amount of Rs. 3.50 lakh to the respondent for the purchase of a house. Subsequently, the appellant realized that the respondent did not have proper title to the property. The appellant thus demanded a return of the advance amount. The appellant filed a complaint under section 138 alleging that the respondent instead of paying the entire amount, issued a cheque for a sum of Rs. 1.50 lakh and cheque so issued were dishonoured. The Trial Court convicted the accused for an offence punishable under section 138. It was a case of the respondent that relative of the appellant was junior in the office of his advocate who represented the respondent in an earlier civil case and due to such dominant position the respondent was made to sign on the dishonoured cheque.

Supreme Court Held

The Apex Court observed that that said story was put forth for the first time before High Court in revision petition against conviction order. Further, if what was stated by the respondent was true, the respondent would have brought the same to the notice of said advocate and in such a situation would not have engaged the same advocate against whose junior he had a grievance.

Further, if the cheque was secured in such circumstances and was not voluntary, it was difficult to comprehend as to why it was drawn for Rs. 1.5 lakh only when it was the case of the appellant that advance amount paid was Rs. 3.5 lakh and had to get back the entire advance paid. Therefore, it could not be held that presumption which had arisen in favour of appellant had been successfully rebutted by the respondent herein. Therefore, High Court was not justified in setting aside the order of conviction

Case Review

• • Sripad v. Triyambak S. Hedge [2022 ] 134 taxmann.com 70 (Karnataka) (para 22) reversed [See annex].

List of Cases Referred to

• • K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan [1999] 7 SCC 510 (para 13)
  • Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa [2019] 5 SCC 418 (para 14)
  • K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1962 SC 1788 (para 18)
  • Kaushalya Devi Massand v. Roopkishore Khore [2011] 4 SCC 593 (para 21).