The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the complainant to prove the existence of a legally enforceable debt before shifting the burden of proof to the accused in cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J:

1. The batch of petitions seeking leave to appeal relate to the same parties and same transaction, but through nine different cheques, which were dishonoured, leading to nine different complaints. As such, all the above petitions are disposed of by this common order.

2. The aforementioned petitions, seeking leave to appeal, are directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 08.10.2012 passed by Shri Rakesh Kumar Singh, learned MM-01, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in Criminal Complaints No.301/2010 whereby the respondent no.2 has been acquitted.

3. It would be relevant to mention that against the aforementioned order of acquittal, the petitioner herein, erroneously preferred an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge. In the aforesaid criminal appeal, the judgment of acquittal was reversed and the respondent no.2 herein was sentenced to imprisonment of 2 years and a fine of double the amount of cheque with the default clause for undergoing 6 months simple imprisonment.

4. The respondent no.2, challenged the aforesaid order in appeal by way of Criminal Revision Petition No.147/2013.

5. This Court vide order dated 19.08.2013, found the Appellate Court judgment to be unsustainable as no appeal could have been preferred against the judgment and order of acquittal in a complaint case as it could have been challenged only by way of appeal under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the High Court. The judgment in appeal, therefore, was set aside and the petitioner/complainant was granted liberty to prefer an appeal before the High Court against the order of acquittal of the accused.

6. Consequently, the present leave to appeal has been filed.

7. The petitioner and the respondent no.2 were known to each other and a friendly loan of Rs.14 lacs was taken by the respondent no.2 from the petitioner with an agreement to return the amount along with interest at the interest of 1 ½ % per month. The aforesaid loan was given in the month of July 2005. The respondent no.2 executed a Demand Promissory Note as well as Consideration Receipt dated July 2005.

8. The respondent no.2 issued nine post-dated cheques, all drawn on The Catholic Syrian Bank Limited, Delhi. The aforesaid cheques, on presentation were dishonoured for insufficiency of funds, for which separate complaints were filed.

9. Despite notices having been served to the respondent no.2, no reply to the said notice or payment in terms of the notice was made by him.

10. Hence, the complaints.

11. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that while the substance of accusation was being explained to the respondent no.2, he admitted to have issued the cheques as advance towards the repayment of loans but clarified that no loan was released to him and, therefore, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

12. The petitioner got himself examined and tried to establish the case on the basis of mandatory presumption of law under Section 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instrument Act to establish the liability on the part of the respondent no.2.

13. Since the original copy of the promissory note and receipt could not be filed by the petitioner, the same was not taken in evidence.

14. From the perusal of the complaint petitions, it appears that no details of the date on which the loan was advanced or as to from which source, the amount of Rs.14 lacs was arranged for giving loan to the respondent no.2 has been disclosed.

15. However, in the cross examination, the petitioner deposed that the amount in question was borrowed from his friends and relatives. The petitioner has gone on to state that he managed Rs.9 lacs from one Arvind Garg; Rs.3 lacs from Gauri Shankar and Rs.2 lacs from Suresh Gupta. Thus, the entire amount of loan is stated to have arranged by the petitioner through his friends who gave such loan to him in cash.

16. The respondent no.2 examined the aforesaid three persons through whom the petitio