The presumption of a legally enforceable debt under the Negotiable Instruments Act must be upheld unless the accused provides substantial evidence to rebut it, irrespective of the payment method.

C.A.V. ORDER

The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the order of the appellate Court passed on an application filed under Section 311 read with Section 386(1)(b) and Section 391 of Cr.P.C.

2. The undisputed factual matrix leading to the present proceedings is that the respondent/complainant initiated a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the present petitioner/accused for the alleged commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The gist of the complaint is that the accused, having received substantial funds from the complainant towards a business transaction, failed to honour the cheque issued in discharge of the said liability, which, upon presentation, was returned unpaid.

3. The petitioner, while not disputing the factum of transaction in its entirety, has seriously contested the complainant’s assertion regarding payment of Rs.14,00,000/- in cash on 22.12.2016. The petitioner’s primary defence, both at the trial and in the appellate stage, is predicated upon the Gazette Notification dated 08.11.2016 issued by the Government of India demonetising the then existing Rs.500/- and Rs.1,000/- currency notes. According to the petitioner, such a payment in cash on the said date was legally and practically untenable in view of the demonetisation policy then in force.

4. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction rendered by the learned Magistrate, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner moved an application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. seeking to summon the Officer-in-Charge, Currency Management, Central Office, Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai, for the purpose of obtaining official information regarding the status of demonetised bank notes post 08.11.2016. The petitioner contended that such evidence was necessary to substantiate his defence that the complainant could not have made the alleged cash payment of Rs.14,00,000/- on 22.12.2016.

5. The appellate Court, upon consideration, rejected the said application, observing that the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is not to be exercised in a routine manner, and that such indulgence would be granted only upon a clear showing of exceptional circumstances and necessity for a just decision. The learned Sessions Judge further noticed that the petitioner had earlier made a similar attempt by filing an application under Section 91 Cr.P.C., which too did not find favour with the Court.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused as well as the learned counsel representing the respondent/complainant at length and have perused the material on record.

7. The complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. reveals that the respondent/complainant had allegedly invested a total sum of Rs.30,00,000/- with the petitioner, who was engaged in the business of civil contracts. Out of the said amount, a sum of Rs.16,00,000/- was transferred through RTGS on different dates, and a further sum of Rs.14,00,000/- was allegedly paid in cash on 22.12.2016. It is the complainant’s categorical case that the petitioner issued a written acknowledgment on the said date, and in discharge of the liability arising therefrom, issued a cheque, which on presentation was dishonoured. The learned trial Magistrate, upon appreciation of evidence, recorded a finding of guilt against the petitioner under Section 138 of the NI Act.

8. The thrust of the petitioner’s case is that the alleged cash payment of Rs.14,00