Presumption under NI Act ss.118/139 rebuttable by evidence of complainant's lack of financial capacity via cross-examination; no appellate interference with reasonable acquittal; IT Act s.269SS violation does not invalidate debt (32 words).

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The appellant has filed the present appeal against the judgment dated 25.10.2024, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, H.P. (learned Trial Court), vide which the complaint filed by the appellant (the complainant before the learned Trial Court) was dismissed. (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 against the accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act). It was asserted that the complainant and the accused were known to each other. The accused borrowed Rs.12,00,000/- for the purchase of a house and the land in the year 2014. The accused promised to return the money on or before October, 2015. She issued a cheque in the complainant’s favour in November 2017 to discharge her liability. The complainant presented the cheque, but it was dishonoured with the remarks ‘funds insufficient’. The complainant served a notice upon the accused asking her to repay the amount within 15 days of the receipt of the notice. The accused failed to repay the amount; hence, the complaint was filed before the learned Trial Court for taking action against the accused as per the law.

3. The 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, to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4 The complainant examined himself (CW-1) to prove his case.

5. The accused, in her statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., denied that she had borrowed Rs.12,00,000/- from the complainant. She stated that she had handed over a blank cheque to the complainant. She was not liable to pay the amount mentioned in the cheque. She had taken Rs.30-35,000/-, which she had returned to the complainant in the Court. She did not need so much money. She did not produce any evidence in her defence.

6. Learned Trial Court held that the accused had a job and she did not require money. The complainant claimed that the accused had asked for the loan to buy a plot. An amount of Rs.12,00,000/- could not have been paid in cash in violation of Section 269 SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The complainant had a salary of Rs.18-19,000/-, and his financial capacity was not proved. He claimed that the money belonged to his father, but he did not examine his father to corroborate his version. The plea taken by the accused that she had handed over the blank cheque to the complainant was highly probable; therefore, the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused of the commission of an offence punishable under section 138 of the NI Act.

7. Being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court, the complainanthad filed the present appeal, asserting that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the significance of the presumption and erred in dismissing the complaint. Therefore, it was prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court be set asid