IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of a legally recoverable debt for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, along with the significance of the presumption under Section 139 of the Act and the burden of proof on the accused to rebut this presumption.

ORDER :

1. Challenge in this appeal is the judgment of acquittal dated 24.01.2014, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raigarh, in Criminal Case No. 61 of 2012, whereby the Respondent No.1 has been acquitted from the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short “NI Act”).

2. The brief facts of the case are that the Appellant/complainant and Respondent No.1/accused are well acquainted and they are having business transactions with each other. On account of necessity of fund for the business transaction, Respondent No.1/accused has borrowed Rs.77,000/- from the Appellant with the assurance to refund it in near future. When the amount was not repaid, on the demand of Appellant/complainant, Respondent No.1/accused had given him two cheques, bearing Cheque No. 009839 dated 21.04.2007, amounting to Rs.60,000/- and Cheque No. 009841 dated 25.04.2007, amounting to Rs. 17,000/-, which was of the account of Respondent No.1 running at Raigarh Nagrik Sahkari Bank Maryadit, Raigarh. When the said cheques were deposited in the account of Appellant/complainant, the same was dishonored by the Payee Bank on 18.07.2007 for want of sufficient balance in the account of Respondent No.1/accused.

3. On 08.08.2007, a demand notice was issued to the Respondent No.1/accused by the Appellant through his counsel. On 11.08.2007, the demand notice has been served upon the Respondent No.1/accused, despite that he has not paid the amount of the above two cheques and ultimately a complaint case under Section 142 of NI Act read with Section 200 of CrPC for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act and Section 420 of IPC has been filed. The complaint case has been filed on 10.09.2007, which has been registered on 27.10.2007, and summons was issued to Respondent No.1/accused.

4. On 21.10.2008, Respondent No.1/accused made his appearance and he has been released on bail. On 15.07.2009, the details of offence have been explained and thereafter, the evidence of the Appellant/complainant has been recorded. After recording of the Appellant's evidence, the statement under Section 313 of CrPC of Respondent No.1/accused has also been recorded, in which he denied the offence and submitted that he is innocent.

5. After conclusion of the trial and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence led by the parties, the learned Trial Court has acquitted Respondent No.1/accused from the alleged offence, hence this acquittal appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the Appellant/complainant would submit that learned Trial Court has erred in acquitting Respondent No.1/accused. The evidence available on record has not been considered in its proper perspective. The statutory presumptions available in the case has not been considered by the learned Trial Court. He would further submit that learned Trial Court has considered para 3 of the complaint, in which the number of the cheque is mentioned as 8060303 in place of 009839 and 009841, whereas the same is only a typographical mistake, which has never been challenged by Respondent No.1. Except in para 3 of the complaint, the number of two cheques have been correctly mentioned in para 2 of his complaint as well as in his affidavit, filed under Section 145 of NI Act. Even the Appellant/complainant relied upon the documents i.e. the two cheques (exhibit P/1 and P/2), the cheque deposition slips (exhibit P/3 and P/4), and also the cheque return memo issued by the Bank and the legal demand notice issued to Respondent No.1/accused on 08.08.2007, and in all these documents, the number of both the cheques have been correctly mentioned. Therefore, the judgment passed by learned Trial Court is erroneous. He would further submit that the learned trial Court should have consider that merely wrong mentioning of cheque number in one place of the complaint does not affect the genuineness of the complaint, particularly in view of the fact that in all other places the number of cheques have been correctly mentioned. He wou