Presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act requires the accused to present credible evidence to rebut the holder's claim of legal liability regarding the cheque issued.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22.04.2009 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.1, Amb, District Una, vide which the complaint filed by the appellant (complainant before the learned Trial Court) was dismissed and the respondent (accused before the learned Trial Court) was acquitted of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act). (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed-before the learned Trial Court for convenience).

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the complainant filed a complaint before the learned Trial Court for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act. It was asserted that the accused handed over a cheque bearing No.840242 dated 26.02.2006 for a sum of Rs. 70,000/- drawn on Kangra Central Cooperative Bank, Chintpurni to discharge her legal liability. The complainant presented the said cheque in his account for its realization. The complainant’s bank sent it to the bank of the accused; however, the cheque was dishonoured with an endorsement of ‘funds insufficient’. Amemo dated 01.03.2006. (Ext. CW1/B) was issued by the bank of the accused. The complainant’s bank returned the cheque and the memo with its memo (Ext. CW1/C) to the complainant. The complainant issued a demand notice (Ext. CW1/D) asking the accused to pay the amount within 15 days from the date of the receipt of the notice. The notice was sent by registered A.D. and a postal receipt (Ext. CW1/F) was obtained. The notice was delivered to the accused and acknowledgement (Ext. CW1/E) was received by the complainant. The accused failed to pay the amount of the cheque; hence, a complaint was filed against the accused for taking action against her as per the law.

3. Learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused. When the accused appeared, a notice of accusation was put to her for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The complainant examined himself (CW1) to prove his case.

5. The accused in her statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. denied the complainant’s case in its entirety. She stated that the complainant had taken a blank cheque from her. She handed over the entire amount to the complainant. She had only put her signature on the cheque. She is not to pay any money to Budh Dev. She admitted that a notice was served upon her and she had sent a reply to the notice. She stated that the complainant had purchased her land and she had repurchased the same after paying the whole amount. The complainant demanded money from her but she was not to pay any money. She tendered the certified copy of the sale deed in evidence.

6. Learned Trial Court held that the issuance of the cheque, its dishonour and service of notice were not disputed. The cheque carries with it a presumption that it was drawn for consideration and that the holder of the cheque had received the cheque in discharge of the debt/ot