The burden of proof in dishonor cases under the N.I. Act shifts to the accused upon issuance of the cheque, and can be rebutted through evidence and inconsistencies by the complainant.

JUDGMENT :

M.G. UMA, J.

The complainant in C.C.No.2288/2013 on the file of the learned IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Vijayapura [for short, ‘the Trial Court’] is impugning the judgment dated 04.06.2021 acquitting the respondent – accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [for short, ‘the N.I. Act’].

2. Facts of the case in brief are that the complainant had filed the private complaint in P.C.No.174/2013 against the accused alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. It is the contention of the complainant that, he is an agriculturist having agricultural lands within the limits of Devaragennur village, Vijayapura taluk. He used to grow sugarcane and was supplying the same to Sri Prabhulingeshwar Sugars and Chemicals Limited, Siddapur. He was in search of a gangman for supply of labourers for the purpose of cutting the sugarcane crops and supplying it to the factory. The accused being gangman used to supply labourers for said purpose. He approached the complainant and assured of providing labourers. With such assurance, the accused obtained in all Rs.7,75,000/- during 2012-13 in the presence of witnesses who are the villagers of Devaragennur village and the officials of the sugar factory. The accused undertook to supply the labourers within stipulated time for the purpose of cutting, loading, transporting sugarcane to the factory. An oral agreement was entered into in that regard. Even though the accused started to cut the sugarcane, he has not completed his work. He failed to provide labourers as undertaken. When the complainant requested him to return the money which he had received with a promise to provide labourers, the accused issued the cheque as per Ex.P-1 for Rs.6,50,000/- towards discharge of his liability. When the cheque was presented for encashment, the same was dishonoured as there was insufficient fund in the account of the accused. Legal notice as per Ex.P-3 was issued informing the accused regarding dishonour of the cheque and calling upon him to repay the cheque amount. The accused has refused to receive the legal notice. He has not repaid the cheque amount. Thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Therefore, the private complaint was filed requesting the Trial Court to take cognizance of the offence and to initiate legal action.

3. The Trial Court took cognizance of the offence and registered C.C.No.2288/2013. The accused appeared before the Court, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The complainant examined himself as PW-1 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-7 in support of his contention. Accused denied all the incriminating materials available on record, but has not led any evidence in support of his defence. The Trial Court, after taking into consideration all these materials on record, came to the conclusion that, the complainant is not successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of acquittal came to be passed. Being aggrieved by the same, the complainant is before this Court.

4. Heard Sri S.S. Mamadapur, learned counsel for the appellant. Respondent’s counsel remained absent. Perused the materials available on record, including the Trial Court records.

5. In view of the contentions urged by learned counsel for the appellant, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

"Whether the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court suffers from infirmities and calls for interference by this Court?"

My answer to the above point is in the ‘Negative’, for t