IMPORTANT POINT
The burden of proof, legal presumptions, and the accused's admission of debt in the issuance of the cheque are crucial in determining liability under the Negotiable Instrument Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present acquittal appeal has been filed by the complainant against the Judgment dated 11.11.2021 passed in Criminal Complaint Case No. 807/2016 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, (C.G.), whereby the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused /respondent herein from the charge punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (for short ‘the N.I. Act’).

2. Brief facts of the case are that accused/respondent herein had given a cheque (Ex. P-1) bearing No. 719036 dated 15.10.2016 amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/- to the complainant for discharge of debt or liability amount, which was deposited by the complainant in his bank for withdrawal. The said cheque got dishonored due to insufficient funds in the account (Ex. P/2), information of which was given to the accused/respondent by the complainant in the prescribed time (Ex. P/ 3) but the accused/respondent did not pay the amount.

3. It is admitted fact that the accused/respondent herein and the complainant are known to each other and owing to the acquaintance, the accused/respondent borrowed Rs.1,20,000/- from the complainant on account of marriage of his sister. To repay the loan taken by the accused/respondent, some cheques of Rs. 4000- 4000/- were given to the complainant. The complainant received only Rs. 16,000/- from the four cheques and the remaining cheques were dishonoured. On being failure to pay the amount, the complainant demanded money upon which the accused/respondent gave a cheque (Ex.P-1) bearing No. 719036 dated 15.10.2016 drawn on State Bank of India, Branch Collectorate , Bilaspur. The said cheque was deposited in Kotak Bank, Branch Bilaspur, by the complainant for encashment, which was dishonored on account of insufficient fund and However the said cheque was dishonoured with the remarks "Insufficient Funds" vide returning memo dated 17.10.2016 (Ex. P/2).

4. It is also admitted fact that on 24.10.2016, information in this regard was sent by a registered mode to the accused/respondent by the complainant in prescribed period (Ex.P/3), but after receiving the notice on 25.10.2016 (Ex.P/4), the accused/respondent did not pay the amount. When the amount was not paid by the accused/respondent, the complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act was filed by the complainant/appellant. The trial Court took cognizance of the complaint and issued notice to the accused/respondent herein who then appeared in the matter. The trial was conducted and the learned J.M.F.C., after appreciating oral and documentary evidence acquitted the accused/respondent herein on this ground that the Complainant could not proved the factum of giving of loan to the accused and ultimately the order of acquittal was passed which sought to be challenged by filing the instant appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant/complainant argued that impugned order passed by the learned J.M.F.C. is bad-in-law and has been passed without considering the evidence adduced by the applicant. The learned trial Court has failed to consider the settled position of law with respect to the presumption in the matter relating to the dishonor of cheque. In this case the defence of the respondent/ accused was that he had taken less amount from the applicant, but the signature of the cheque and the fact of cheque available with the complainant goes to show that although the accused has admitted his debt.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant further contented that there is no plausible defence was put by the respondent/accused, but the Trial Court held that money was not given by the complainant and mere issuance of cheque does not prove that the cheque was issued under any debt or obligation.

7. The applicant/complainant had laid evidence in line with the framework of the N.I. Act, however, without analyzing the evidence of the defence, the learned trial Court committed error in shifting the entire onus of proof on the applicant herein, which is a gross violation of well se