IMPORTANT POINT
Burden is on accused to rebut the presumption u/s 139 Negotiable Instruments Act but primary burden rests on complainant to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt.

R. Basant. J.- These appeals are taken up for disposal together as agreed by the rival contestants as the appellant and respondent in these appeals are common and the challenge raised is against a common judgment. The complainant is the appellant. He had alleged that the accused had committed the offence punishable under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in respect of three cheques for a total amount of Rs. 6.00.000. By the impugned judgment the accused was found not guilty and acquitted.

2. The complainant alleged that the accused had issued three cheques for a total amount of Rs. 6.00.000 to him for the due discharge of a legally enforceable debt/liability. The complainant had advanced the said amount and for return of the same three post dated cheques dt. 1.6.1990, 15.6.1990 and 1-7-1990 were issued to the accused by the complainant. The said cheques when presented for encashment were dishonoured by the bank on the ground of insufficiency of funds. The information of dishonour was received by the complainant on the respective dates of dishonour. The complainant allegedly informed the accused of the fact of dishonour. Both of them are Professors in college. The complainant caused registered notices of demand as insisted by law to be issued to the accused. The notices addressed to the residential address of the accused were not received and were returned to the accused. Even before the complainant actually received those notices back, by way of abundant caution the complainant caused further notices to be issued to the accused at his official address.

These were also evaded. All such attempts to effect service did not fructify. No payment was made by the accused. It is in these circumstances that the complainant came to court with three separate complaints.

3. Cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate. The accused denied the offence alleged against him. Thereupon the complainant examined Pws. 1 to 4, PW. 1 is the complainant. PW. 2 is the manager of the drawee bank. PW. 3 is the Principal of the college and he is examined obviously for the purpose of showing that the accused who was present in college had not accepted the notices addressed to him at the college address. PW 4 is the postman and. he was examined for proving that the notices addressed to the accused at his correct address could not be served as the accused attempted to evade the same. Exts. P 1 to P 24 were marked.

4. The accused denied all circumstances which appeared in evidence and which were put to him. He conceded that the cheques in question were drawn on cheque leaves issued to him by his bank to operate his account. He further conceded that all the three cheques do bear his signature. But according to him these cheques were not issued by him to the complainant. They were not issued for the discharge of any legally enforceable debt/liability. He took up the contention that he had kept blank signed cheque leaves at his place of work and such blank signed cheque leaves were found missing when he returned to work after a short gap of time due to illness. The obvious suggestion was that the complainant must have stealthily come into possession of the blank signed cheque leaves and was misutilising the same with mala-fide motives. He contended that the complainant, though a college teacher, was indulging in business activities in timber to the detriment of his academic responsibilities. The accused had raised objections against the same and it was in these circumstances that the complainant was vexatiously prosecuting the accused.

5. The accused examined DWs. 1 to 7 and proved Exts D1 to D 12. DWs. 1 to 6 are examined and Exts. D 1 to D 12 were marked with the intention of showing that the complainant had some business transactions in timber. DW.7 a watchman of the accused was examined to disprove the contention that the accused was evading the notice addressed to his residential address.

6. The learned Magistrate on an anxious consideration of t