IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the conviction under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, emphasizing the petitioner's burden to rebut the presumption of liability, which he failed to do.

JUDGMENT :

MITALI THAKURIA, J.

Heard Mr. M. H. Rajbarbhuiyan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S. H. Borah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent No.1 and Mr. P. K. Deka, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

2. This application is filed under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 , read with Section 482 of the Cr. P.C., challenging the impugned Judgment and Order dated 18.11.2019, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar in Crl. Appeal Case No. 40/2018. The Judgment affirmed and upheld the impugned Judgment and Order dated 20.11.2018 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar in N.I. Case No. 78/2010, which was registered under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The order established the petitioner's guilt under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and imposed a fine of Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rupees six lakhs) only, including a lump sum interest amount, payable to the complainant/respondent No.2. In default of payment, the petitioner is liable to undergo 6(six) months of rigorous imprisonment.

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

3.1. The petitioner and respondent No. 2 are both businessmen of good repute in Silchar and had a history of lending and borrowing money from each other. In May 2010, facing a financial crisis, the petitioner asked Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rupees six lakhs) only from the respondent No.2, with an assurance to repay the amount promptly. On 01.06.2010, the respondent No.2 paid the petitioner Rs.6,60,000/- (Rupees six lakhs sixty thousand) only, in the presence of one Sri Chandan Pal. After a few days, the petitioner issued a cheque for Rs. 6,60,000/- (Cheque No. 0300071, dated 09.09.2010) to the respondent No.2, in presence of said Sri Chandan Pala and also requested the respondent No.2 to present the said cheque in Assam Gramin Vikas Bank, Silchar after three months, when sufficient funds would be available in his account. However, when the respondent No.2 presented the cheque for payment, it was dishonored due to insufficient funds in the petitioner’s account. The respondent No.2 served a legal notice as per the N.I Act, but the petitioner denied any liability. Subsequently, he filed a case under the N.I Act before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar.

3.2. The petitioner’s defence was that the debt had been repaid, and the respondent No.2 had issued a receipt for the payment but failed to return the dishonored cheque, claiming it was misplaced. During the trial, the respondent No.2 examined two witnesses and submitted the dishonored cheque, the return memo, the demand notice, and the postal documents. The petitioner relied on Exhibits- A, B, and C and a handwriting expert’s report. As per handwriting expert the respondent’s No.2 signature appeared on Exhibit C (a receipt), which the respondent No.2 denied. The petitioner contended that he proved during the trial that he repaid the loan, but the learned Trial Court did not appreciate his defence and found the petitioner guilty under Section 138 of the N.I Act. The Court noted that the respondent No.2 had received partial payments of Rs. 40,000/-(Rupees forty thousand) only on 04.11.2013, Rs. 1,60,000/- (Rupees one lakh sixty thousand) only on 28.08.2013, and Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only via demand draft on 08.10.2013, totaling Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rupees two lakhs fifty thousand) only. The petitioner contends that he had repaid the entire amount, as evidenced by the receipt signed by the complainant/respondent No.2, which was verified by a handwriting expert. However, the learned Trial Court rejected this evidence and passed the impugned judgment dated 20.11.2018, directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 6,00,000/- (minus Rs. 2.5 lakhs) towards interest and, in default, to undergo 6 (six) months of rigorous imprisonment.

3.3. Dissatisfied with the afores