The court reaffirmed that the burden to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act lies with the accused, and a signed blank cheque can still be valid if issued towards a debt.

JUDGMENT :

A. BADHARUDEEN, J.

This appeal is at the instance of the complainant in S.T.No.1929/2006 on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kottayam, challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 09.07.2008 in the said case. The 1^st respondent herein is the accused and the 2^nd respondent is State of Kerala.

2. I shall refer the parties in this appeal with reference to their status before the trial court as `complainant’ and `accused’ hereinafter for easy reference.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the complainant/accused and the learned Public Prosecutor in detail.

4. Perused the trial court records and the judgment under challenge.

5. The prosecution case emanated when the complainant filed a complaint before the trial court alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the accused. The case of the complainant is that the accused had issued cheque for Rs.50,000/- dated 07.03.2006 in discharge of his liability towards the complainant on the assurance of encashment. But when cheque was presented for collection, the same was dishonoured for want of funds. When legal notice of demand was issued, the same was returned unclaimed.

6. The trial court took cognizance of the matter and recorded evidence confined to that of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P6 on the sideuij of the complainant.

7. Even though after questioning the accused under Section313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C, opportunity was given to the accused to adduce evidence, no defence evidence was adduced.

8. On appreciation of evidence, the trial court found that mere putting of signature in a cheque leaf would not tantamount to drawing of a cheque and therefore preponderances of probabilities in this case were that the cheque leaf had been given as signed blank, as stated by the accused, when he borrowed Rs.10,000/- from the complainant.

9. While canvassing interference in the judgment impugned, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the complainant that by the evidence of PW1 supported by Exts.P1 to P6, the complainant discharged the initial burden in the matter of transaction to the tune of Rs.50,000/- borrowed by the accused on 25.02.2006 from him after executing Ext.P1 cheque; and issuance of Ext.P1 for the discharge of the said amount. Therefore, the trial court should have given the benefit of presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I Act in favour of the complainant. It is urged that for the above reasons the trial court verdict would require interference.

10. Repelling this argument, the learned counsel for the accused argued much to sustain the verdict of acquittal. The specific case of the accused is that on receipt of Rs.10,000/- from the complainant, the accused issued a blank cheque leaf to him. The said cheque leaf was misused by the complainant for the purpose of this case. Therefore, the trial court is justified in holding that the complainant failed to prove his case. Therefore, the acquittal doesn’t require any interference.

11. Upon the rival submissions, the points arise for consideration are:

(i) Whether the trial court went wrong in holding that the accused did not commit offence under Section 138 of the N.I Act?

(ii) Is it necessary to interfere with the verdict under challenge?

(iii) Order to be passed?

Point Nos.(i) and (ii)

12. The specific case of the complainant is that the accused borrowed Rs.50,000/- from him on 25.02.2006 and in discharge of the said sum, Ext.P1 cheque dated 07.03.2006 was issued by the accused. The further case of the complainant as deposed by him is that believing the words of the accused, he accepted the cheque and presented