The court emphasized the presumption of validity of cheques under Section 139, stating that the accused holds the burden to prove lack of consideration, and failure to rebut results in the continuation of the complainant's claim.

JUDGMENT :

H.P. Sandesh, J.

The Crl.A.No.5/2024 is filed challenging the judgment and order of acquittal dated 08.12.2023 in C.C.No.6061/2022 passed by the XII ASCJ and ACMM Court, Bengaluru and Crl.A.No.455/2024 is filed challenging the judgment and order of acquittal dated 22.01.2024 passed in Crl.A.No.1350/2022 by the LXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru reversing the judgment dated 30.09.2022 passed in C.C.No.10763/2021 by the XII Additional and ACMM, Bengaluru.

2. The appellant in both the appeals is common and the respondents in both the appeals are different. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in both the cases and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

3. The factual aspects of the case of Crl.A.No.5/2024 which is arising out of C.C.No.6061/2022 is that the complainant and the accused are known to each other. The accused had sought hand loan of Rs.9/- lakh from him to clear hand loan borrowed for his son’s marriage and also to clear old debts and hence, the said amount was paid to the accused by way of cash on 21.12.2021 and the accused had agreed to repay the said amount within two months with 18% interest. The accused issued a post dated Cheque for Rs.9/- lakh and when the said Cheque was presented, the same was dishonoured with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’ and hence, the complainant issued a legal notice and the same was served and inspite of service of notice, the accused neither paid the Cheque amount nor replied to the notice. Hence, the complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act and cognizance was taken and accused was secured and he did not plead guilty and claims for trial.

4. The complainant in order to prove his case, examined himself as PW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P12. On the other hand, accused examined himself as DW1 and got marked the document at Ex.D1. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, acquitted the accused in coming to the conclusion that the complainant failed to prove his financial capacity to lend the money and also comes to the conclusion that Ex.P6 in the present case also produced in C.C.No.10763/2021. Apart from that the documents at Ex.P7 and P8 are produced for having pledged the gold ornaments and paid the amount. The complainant also relied upon the document at Ex.P9 which is the statement in the loan ledger for jewel loan showing transfer of the above said amount to the complainant. The Trial Court also given the reasoning that the person who pledged the gold and paying the interest, will not lend the money to the accused. The Trial Court also comes to the conclusion that PW1 himself admitted that Ex.P6 to P9 are produced in another case. The Trial Court having considered the payment of Rs.5,50,000/- to another accused in C.C.No.10763/2021 comes to the conclusion that there would be a shortage of amount of Rs.4,62,000/- and held that then, how he managed the said amount in order to pay amount to the accused is not explained. Hence, doubted the case of the complainant regarding the capacity to lend the money. Accordingly, acquitted the accused. Hence, the present appeal is filed before this Court questioning the order of acquittal.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant in his arguments would vehemently contend that the Trial Court fails to consider the cogent evidence placed on record. The Trial Court failed to consider the admission of DW1 and the Trial Court is not taken any