2011 (12) TMI 778 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legally enforceable debt/liability.
2. Rebuttal of presumption u/s 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
3. Evidence and burden of proof.

Summary:

1. Legally enforceable debt/liability:
The appellant (original complainant) challenged the acquittal of the respondent (original accused) for the offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The complainant alleged that the accused issued a cheque of Rs. 50,000/- towards part payment for goods worth Rs. 2,00,000/- purchased on credit. The cheque was dishonoured due to 'insufficient funds'. The complainant presented the cheque twice, both times it was dishonoured. The complainant issued a notice demanding payment, which the accused failed to comply with, leading to the filing of the complaint.

2. Rebuttal of presumption u/s 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act:
The trial court concluded that the cheque was not issued towards a legally enforceable debt/liability. The accused's defense was that there was no business transaction with the complainant and the cheque was related to a different transaction involving the complainant's son. The accused did not personally deliver the cheque and had no dealings with the complainant. The court found that the accused successfully rebutted the presumption u/s 139 on the preponderance of probability.

3. Evidence and burden of proof:
The complainant examined three witnesses and produced documentary evidence, including the disputed cheque and related correspondence. The accused did not examine any witnesses but presented his defense through cross-examination and his statement u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court noted that the complainant failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the cheque was issued towards a legally enforceable debt/liability. The covering letter of the cheque indicated it was issued by the accused's son for a different transaction. The complainant did not provide sufficient evidence of any business transaction with the accused.

Conclusion:
The court held that the trial court's view of acquitting the accused was a possible view and not perverse. The reasoning for acquittal was sound, and no interference was warranted. The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment and order of acquittal dated 16th August 2000 were confirmed.