The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act includes the existence of a legally enforceable debt; mere denial by the accused is insufficient.

JUDGMENT :

UDAY KUMAR, J.

1. These two revisional applications, CRR 678 of 2022 and CRR 679 of 2022, filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( Cr.P.C ), challenge the judgments dated February 4, 2022, rendered by the Learned 2nd Fast Track Court, Judge, City Sessions, Calcutta. These judgments convicted the petitioner, Amit Jhunjhunwala, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (N.I. Act), overturning his earlier acquittals by the Learned 15th Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta. Notably, both appellate orders imposed a fine of Rs. 4,30,000/-, with a default sentence of six months simple imprisonment. Given that both cases involve the same individuals, raise identical legal questions stemming from similar factual matrices concerning the dishonour of cheques, and seek the same outcome, they have been heard and are being disposed of together for the sake of convenience to prevent contradictory judgments, and maintain consistency.

2. The factual background for these disputes originates from two distinct complaints filed by Jugal Kishore Sadani, the complainant, against the petitioner. Each complaint alleged an existing financial liability arising from an alleged loan agreement dated March 7, 2015. Specifically, in Complaint Case No. CS/61234/2016 (linked to CRR 678/2022), the petitioner allegedly issued three cheques (numbers 409207, 409208, 409209), each for Rs. 71,667/-, dated October 6, November 6, and December 6, 2015, respectively. These cheques, drawn on IDBI Bank, Brabourne Road Branch, Kolkata, were dishonoured due to "Insufficient Funds." Consequently, a statutory demand notice followed on January 7, 2016, which the petitioner received on January 11, 2016. Separately, in Complaint Case No. CS-103374 of 2016 (linked to CRR 679/2022), the petitioner is alleged to have issued three different cheques (numbers 409213, 409214, 409215), each for Rs. 71,667/-, dated April 6, May 6, and June 6, 2016, respectively, also in relation to an existing financial liability. These cheques, likewise drawn on IDBI Bank, were dishonoured on June 27, 2016, for "Insufficient Funds." A subsequent demand notice was issued on July 20, 2016, and received by the petitioner on July 23, 2016. In both instances, despite receiving the demand notices, the petitioner failed to remit the demanded sum within the mandated 15- day period, thereby compelling the complainant to initiate criminal proceedings.

3. As the matters progressed, during both trials before the Learned 15th Metropolitan Magistrate, the complainant adduced himself as the sole prosecution witness (PW-1), providing oral testimony and submitting documentary evidence. Crucially, the petitioner deliberately chose not to cross-examine PW-1 in either case, a decision that would later prove significant. Furthermore, in his statements recorded under Section 313 CrPC for both complaints, the petitioner simply denied the allegations and expressly stated he would not call any witnesses for his defence. Notwithstanding this unchallenged prosecution evidence, the Trial Court, on September 29, 2018, acquitted the petitioner in both matters. The Magistrate's reasoning in both instances was primarily that "no whisper had been made by the complainant as to the existing legally enforceable debt or liability," a conclusion drawn from an interpretation of Krishna Janardan Bhatt v. Dattatraya G. Hegde, (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 166, that