The main legal point established in the judgment is that the presumption in favor of the holder of a cheque for the discharge of debt or liability under Section 139 of the N.I. Act is rebuttable, and the accused must provide evidence to disprove the claim.

2. This is an application under Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the Judgment and Order dated 07.07.2017 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge (FTC) No.3, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in Criminal Appeal No.200/2013, affirming the Judgment and Order dated 15.10.2013 passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in connection with the Complaint Case No. 1940/2008.

3. The brief facts of the case is that; the trial was initiated on the basis of the complaint made by one Sri Mahesh Sarma/present respondent No.2 alleging dishonor of cheque amounting to Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs fifty thousand) only dated 07.01.2008. As per the complainant/present respondent No.2, the said amount was paid by him to the accused/petitioner for investment in some business which he failed to repay, and on repeated demand, the accused/petitioner was compelled to issue a cheque amounting to Rs.2,50,000/-(Rupees Two lakhs fifty thousand) only in favour of the complainant/present respondent No.2. But, when the cheque was presented for encasement, the Bank informed the respondent No.2/complainant about the dishonor of cheque due to insufficient funds. Accordingly, the respondent No.2 issued a legal notice within the stipulated time through registered post, but, the accused/petitioner refused to accept the same and hence, the complaint was filed under Section 138 of N. I. Act. Thereafter, the ld. JMFC, Kamrup (M) took cognizance against the accused/petitioner, only after hearing the arguments of both sides and on the basis of the evidences available on record, and accordingly, the said Court passed the order of conviction by sentencing the accused/petitioner to undergo S. I. for 2(two) months along with a compensation amount of Rs. 5,00,000/-(Rupees Five lakhs) only and in default S. I. for another 1(one) month. Thus, on being highly aggrieved, the present petitioner preferred the criminal appeal being numbered as Crl.A. Case No.200/2013, wherein, the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) No.-3, Kamrup (M), Guwahati passed the Judgment and Order dated 07.07.2017 by dismissing the appeal and by affirming the Judgment and Order dated 15.10.2013.

4. On being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Judgments and Orders dated 07.07.2017 and 15.10.2023 passed by the ld. Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC) No.3, Kamrup (M), and the ld. JMFC, Kamrup (M), respectively, this criminal revision petition has been preferred by the accused/petitioner praying for setting aside and quashing of the same.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Chakraborty has submitted that the appeal was decided mechanically taking a very hyper technical view, while, upholding the judgment and conviction order as passed by the learned Trial Court. She also submits that the learned Court below failed to appreciate that the cheque in question was never given as an enforceable debt in as much as the complainant miserably failed to prove that there was any enforceable debt to invoke Section 138 of the N.I. Act. And the Court also misinterpreted the provision of Sections 138 and 139 of the N. I. Act, while, upholding the judgment and sentence of the learned Court below and hence, the same is not sustainable in the eye of law. Thus, the impugned judgments and orders are liable to be set aside and quashed.

6. She further submits that the learned Courts below failed to appreciate that in the instant case in hand the complainant has failed to prove that the cheques were issued by the petitioner against any legally enforceable debt. In that view of the matter the impugned judgment and conviction is bad in law and liable to be set aside and quashed and thus, the interference of this Court is required.

7. Ms. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted further that the petitioner along with one Dilip Kr. Sarma took the money from the present respondent No.2 as per the agreement dated 09.05.2008, but, th