2010 (1) TMI 1303 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the accused issued a cheque in discharge of debt or other liability towards the complainant.
2. Whether the presumption u/s 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was successfully rebutted by the accused.
3. Whether the trial court's judgment of acquittal was justified.

Summary:

Issue 1: Whether the accused issued a cheque in discharge of debt or other liability towards the complainant.
The complainant alleged that the accused issued a cheque for Rs. 50,000/- in repayment of a loan. The accused denied any loan transaction, claiming the cheque was given as part repayment for a shop purchase that did not materialize. The trial court found that the accused rebutted the presumption u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by raising a probable defense, casting doubt on the loan transaction.

Issue 2: Whether the presumption u/s 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was successfully rebutted by the accused.
The trial court held that the accused successfully rebutted the presumption u/s 139 by demonstrating inconsistencies in the complainant's case and questioning her financial capacity to lend Rs. 65,000/-. The accused's defense that the cheque was given as part repayment for a shop purchase and later assumed the character of security was found probable.

Issue 3: Whether the trial court's judgment of acquittal was justified.
The appellate court upheld the trial court's judgment, agreeing that the accused raised a probable defense and rebutted the presumption u/s 139. The complainant's evidence was found inconsistent and lacking credibility. The appellate court concluded that the accused was entitled to the benefit of doubt, and the trial court rightly dismissed the complaint.

Conclusion:
The appellate court rejected the criminal appeal, affirming the trial court's acquittal of the accused. The personal bond and surety furnished by the respondent-accused were discharged.