2012 (1) TMI 398 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legally enforceable debt or liability.
2. Rebuttal of presumption u/s 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
3. Contradictory versions regarding the issuance of the cheque.
4. Evidentiary requirements and burden of proof.

Summary:

1. Legally enforceable debt or liability:
The appellant filed a complaint u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act alleging that the first respondent issued a cheque to discharge a loan borrowed by her husband. The cheque was dishonored due to insufficient funds. The trial court acquitted the first respondent, holding that the appellant failed to prove the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability.

2. Rebuttal of presumption u/s 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act:
The trial court found that the first respondent successfully rebutted the presumption u/s 139 of the Act. The appellant did not produce the promissory note or any books of account to prove the debt. The first respondent issued a notice (Ex.D-2) to the appellant, alleging that the cheque was obtained as security and not for the discharge of any debt.

3. Contradictory versions regarding the issuance of the cheque:
The appellant provided contradictory statements regarding the purpose of the cheque. Initially, it was claimed that the cheque was issued as a guarantor, but later, it was stated that it was issued as security for the loan. The trial court noted these inconsistencies and found them significant in rebutting the presumption.

4. Evidentiary requirements and burden of proof:
The appellant failed to produce crucial evidence such as the promissory note and did not examine the attestors of the note. The trial court observed variations in the handwriting on the cheque, suggesting it might have been filled in by the appellant. The court held that the first respondent's evidence and circumstances were sufficient to rebut the presumption of a legally enforceable debt.

Conclusion:
The High Court upheld the trial court's judgment of acquittal, confirming that the first respondent successfully rebutted the presumption u/s 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The appellant's failure to provide necessary evidence and the inconsistencies in his statements were critical in the court's decision. The criminal appeal was dismissed.