The presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act stands unless the accused sufficiently rebuts it, impacting their liability for dishonored cheques.

ORDER :

(J.M. KHAZI, J.)

In these petitions filed under Section 397 of Cr.P.C, petitioner who is accused before the trial Court has challenged her conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court, which came to be confirmed by the Sessions Court by dismissing the appeals filed by her.

2. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to by their ranks before the trial Court.

3. Two separate complaints came to be filed by the complainant against the accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I Act, alleging that she and accused were friends since 10 years. Accused gained the confidence of complainant and used to borrow hand loan and repay the same. During the month of January 2013, accused requested complainant to lend Rs.7 lakhs for establishing a Beauty Parlour in Malleshwaram area of Bengaluru City. Accordingly, complainant advanced Rs.7 lakhs to her. Again in the month of April 2013, accused requested complainant hand loan of Rs.1 lakh as she was required to pay fee and donation for admitting her daughter to Deeksha Reva College, Sanjaynagar, Bengaluru. She has promised to repay the same in two instalments in between November 2013 to January 2014.

3.1 However, when accused defaulted repayment and on repeated request and demand, she issued two cheques i.e., 566187 and 566185 for Rs.4 lakhs each dated 04.04.2014 and 07.04.2014, with an assurance of prompt payment on presentation. However, before the due date, accused got issued a legal notice to the complainant alleging that 4 cheques bearing Nos.566173, 566174, 566181 and 566184 are in her custody and demanded to return them. However, the complainant has not received any of those cheques from the accused.

3.2 When she approached accused regarding the said notice, accused said that the notice was sent by mistake and that she can encash cheque Nos.566187 and 566185. Accordingly, complainant presented the subject cheques on due dates. However, they were dishonoured on account of stop payment instructions. In this regard she got issued legal notices dated 21.04.2014 and they are duly served. After receipt of the legal notice, accused vacated the house in Sanjayanagar and shifted to Ramamurthynagar. To harass the complainant accused approached Mahila Sahayavani and after complainant apprised the true facts, the said complaint was dismissed after warning the accused. The accused has not sent reply to the legal notice issued by the complainant. She has also not paid the amount due and hence, the complaint.

4. After due service of summons accused has appeared before the trial Court and contested the case by pleading not guilty.

5. In both complaints, complainant has given evidence as PW-1 and her brother as PW-2. In C.C.No.15012/2014, she has relied upon Exs.P1 to 57 and in C.C.No.23131/2014, she has relied upon Exs.P1 to 10.

6. During the course of her statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused has denied the incriminating evidence led by the complainant.

7. Accused has also given evidence in both cases by examining herself as DW-1 and got marked Exs.D1 to 4.

8. By a common judgment, the trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced her to pay fine of Rs.8,20,000/- with default sentence.

9. Aggrieved by the same, accused filed Crl.A.Nos.31