The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act places the burden of proof on the accused to rebut claims of debt, failure to do so solidifies conviction for dishonored cheques.

ORDER :

J.M.KHAZI, J.

In this petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C , accused has challenged his conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I Act imposed by the trial Court, which is confirmed by the Sessions Court, but it partly allowed appeal reducing the sentence.

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

3. It is the case of the complainant that accused is known to her and her family since past several years. In this background, in the first week of April 2012, accused requested the complainant to advance hand loan of Rs.5,50,000 for his urgent personal requirement. Taking into consideration the request of the accused, complainant advanced hand loan of Rs.5,50,000 on 10.04.2012 i.e, transferred a sum of Rs.5 lakhs to the account of the accused through RTGS and paid the remaining Rs.50,000/- in cash. Accused promised to repay the same during February 2013. On the demand made by the complainant accused issued cheque dated 25.02.2013 for a sum of Rs.5,50,000/-. However, when complainant presented the cheque for realisation, it was returned dishonoured as "Funds insufficient". In this regard, complainant got issued a legal notice dated 13.03.2013. Despite receipt of the notice, accused has neither paid the amount nor sent any reply, and hence the complaint.

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

5. In order to prove the allegations against accused, complainant examined her power of attorney holder as PW-1 and got marked Exs.P1 to 8.

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

7. Accused has not led any defence evidence.

8. The trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.7,20,000 with default sentence of imprisonment and directed that out of the fine amount, a sum of Rs.7,15,000/- be paid to the complainant by way of compensation.

9. Aggrieved by the same accused went in appeal before the Sessions Court in Crl.A.662/2018. Though the Session Court confirmed the conviction of the accused, it reduced to the fine amount to Rs.5,55,000/- and directed a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- paid to the complainant by way of compensation.

10. Unfortunately complainant has not challenged the order of the Sessions Court reducing the fine amount.

11. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the trial Court and Sessions Court, the accused has come up with this petition contending that the judgment and sentence passed by both Courts are illegal, improper, capricious and not in accordance with law. It is therefore liable to be set aside. Complainant failed to prove the proprietorship of Suraksha Petro services. The Courts below have not appreciated this aspect. They have gravely erred in not understanding the statutory importance of Section 118 and 139 of N.I. Act and by mis-applying the same to the evidence on record resulted in convicting the accused. The presumption under Section 118 and 139 of the N.I Act is wrongly applied. The reasons assigned are not convincing. The impugned judgment and order are perverse, capricious and liable to be set aside and hence the petition.

12. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for accused has relied upon the following decisions:

(i) G.H. Abdul Kadri Vs. Mr.Mohammed Iqbal (Abdul Kadri), Crl.R.No.1323/2019 c/w 1338/201, 1342/2019, 1403/2019, 1405/2019 & 1352/2019 Dt: 24.05.2022

(ii) Rajaram, S/o Sriramulu Naidu (Since deceased) Throu