The presumption of a legally recoverable debt under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can only be rebutted by the accused through credible evidence, which was found lacking.

ORDER :

J.M.KHAZI, J.

In these petitions filed under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of Cr.P.C, accused has challenged his conviction and sentence for the offence of punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act (for short "N.I.Act") by the trial Court, which came to be confirmed by the Sessions Court by dismissing the appeals filed by him.

2. In the criminal cases out of which these petitions have arisen, the complainant and accused are common. In all the cases the contention taken by the complainant and defence of the accused are same. They also involve common discussion and findings. Therefore, all the petitions are taken together and disposed off by a common order.

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

4. It is the case of the complainant that he and accused entered into a sale agreement dated 26.11.2014, by which, accused who is the owner of the flat agreed to sell the same to the complainant for a total sum of Rs.40 lakhs. By way of advance, complainant paid Rs.15 lakhs and he was required to pay balance consideration of Rs.25 lakhs on the date of registration. Accused agreed to complete the construction and handover possession of the property within 15 months from the date of agreement. However, complainant paid balance consideration of Rs.25 lakhs in five instalments on the following dates.

1) Rs.6,50,000/- on 21.12.2014,

2) Rs.5,00,000/- on 28.12.2014,

3) Rs.5,00,000/- on 13.01.2015,

4) Rs.3,50,000/- on 20.01.2015,

5) Rs.5,00,000/- on 15.04.2015.

5. However, the accused failed to complete the construction within 15 months and execute the sale deed. On the repeated request and demand by the complainant, accused made an endorsement on the sale agreement on 09.01.2017 that he would pay the entire sum of Rs.40 lakhs together with additional sum of Rs.14 lakhs towards compensation for the delay. He issued three post dated 25.02.2017 cheque for Rs.20 lakhs, dated 30.03.2017 for Rs.4,00,000/- and cheque dated 28.04.2017 for Rs.30 Lakhs, with an assurance that they would be honoured on presentation. However, when complainant presented the cheques for encashment, they were returned dishonoured for want of sufficient funds and got issued legal notices to the accused. However, the accused has failed to comply with the legal notice. On the other hand he sent evasive reply and therefore, without any alternative complaint is filed.

6. In respect of dishonour of three cheques, the complainant has filed three separate complaints.

7. After due service of summons, accused has entered appearance through counsel and contested the case by pleading not guilty.

8. In order to prove the allegations against the accused, in C.C.No.15568/2017 complainant examined himself as PW-1 and got marked Exs.P1 to 7.

9. In C.C.No.15569/2017, complainant is examined as PW-1 and Exs.P1 to 6 are marked.

10. In C.C.No.21066/2017, complainant is examined as PW-1 and Exs.P1 to 5 are marked.

11. In all these cases, during the course of his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, accused has denied the incriminating evidence led by the complainant.

12. In all these three cases, the accused has not led any oral evidence. However, in C.C.No.15568/2017 accused got marked Exs.D1 to 3.

13. The trial Court accepted the case of the complainant and convicted the accused and sentenced him as detailed in order.

14. Accused challenged his conviction and sentence bef