Point of Law: Dishonored of Cheque - Presumption in favour of holder - The presumption attached to Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act does comes into play, but yet, this presumption is rebuttable.

JUDGMENT :

AJAY MOHAN GOEL, J.

1. By way of this appeal, filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant has assailed the judgment passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Karsog, District Mandi, H.P. in Criminal Complaint No. 555 of 2017, titled as Shri Ram Lal vs. Shri Mauji Ram, decided on 02.03.2020, filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, vide which the complaint so filed by the present appellant stood dismissed by the leaned Court below.

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present appeal are that the appellant herein filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the accused, on the ground that the accused was known to him and had borrowed an amount of Rs. 85,000/- from him in the month of October, 2016, in order to run his business of apples and other activities. In lieu thereof, he issued a cheque to him for an amount of Rs. 85,000/- drawn upon State Bank of India, Karsog Branch, dated 21.03.2017. The cheque when presented before the bank, was dishonoured, vide memorandum dated 21.04.2017, on the ground of Insufficient Funds. Thereafter, the complainant got issued a legal notice through counsel, dated 09.05.2017, to the accused, calling upon him to make good the amount of the cheque. As the same was not done, the complainant approached the Court and preferred the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

3. The complaint was resisted by the accused, who took the stand that he had given a blank cheque bearing his signatures, to the complainant as surety for one Shri Narayan Dass and the surety also was only for an amount of Rs. 40,000/-. He further took the defence that though the cheque was bearing his signatures, yet neither the date nor the amount was in his handwriting. By way of the impugned judgment, the complaint stands dismissed and the accused stands acquitted.

4. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has filed this appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the judgment passed by the learned Court below is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the learned Court erred in not appreciating that as it stood proved that the cheque in issue was bearing the signatures of the accused, nothing more remained to be proved by the complainant and this extremely important aspect of the matter has been ignored by the learned Court below while acquitting the accused. He has further submitted that the complainant had proved by leading cogent and satisfactory evidence to demonstrate that it was in lieu of an amount which the accused owed to him that the cheque in issue stood issued and this aspect of the matter has also been ignored by the learned Court below. On this count, he submitted that the appeal be allowed.

6. Supporting the judgment passed by the learned Court below, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that there was neither any infirmity nor any perversity with the judgment passed by the learned Court below as the learned Court after correct appreciation of the pleadings of the parties as well as the evidence on record dismissed the complaint and acquitted the accused. He has argued that the complainant failed to demonstrate that the cheque indeed was issued in lieu of an amount which the accused owed to the complainant and in fact filing of the complaint was nothing but an abuse of the process of law. He further states that otherwise also it is settled law that the judgment of acquittal should not be interfere with in appeal until and unless the same suffers from ex facie perversity. According to him, as the findings returned by the learned Court below are duly borne out from the record of the case, therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court as well as the record, this Court finds no perversity with the judgment of acquittal passed by the learne