IMPORTANT POINT
The presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act is rebuttable, and the burden lies on the accused to raise a probable defense regarding the existence of a legally enforceable debt, which must be supported by credible evidence.

JUDGMENT :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD

The present Criminal Revision No. 482 of 2021 has been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 26.03.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 178 of 2019 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Jamshedpur whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Jamshedpur has allowed Criminal Appeal No. 178 of 2019 filed by the Opposite Party No. 2 by setting aside the judgement of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.06.2019 passed by Ms. Darshana, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur in connection with C/1 Case No. 760 of 2015, although the opposite party no. 2, Manorama Devi had been convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the N. I. Act in connection with C/1 Case No. 760 of 2015 corresponding to T. R. No. 198 of 2019 by Ms. Darshana, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur vide judgement of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.06.2019 and had been sentenced to undergo S. I. for a period of three (3) months and had further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lac Fifty Thousand Only) by way of compensation to the complainant-petitioner under Section 357 (3) of the Cr. P. C.

2. The complainant’s case, in brief, is that the complainant and the accused and her husband were known to each other since long and the accused along with her husband had taken friendly loan of Rs. 2, 30,000/- from the complainant for the purpose of treatment of her daughter-in-law and also promised to return the same within one year. It is also alleged that when the accused failed to repay the debt amount within stipulated time, the complainant started demanding his money and after several request being made by the complainant, the accused had issued one cheque no. 858433 dated 25.1.2015 worth Rs. 2,30,000/- in favour of the complainant with an assurance that the same will be encashed on its presentation before the court. The complainant presented the said cheque to his Bank for encashment but the same was returned unpaid showing the reason “insufficient fund” in the account of the accused-Opposite Party No. 2 vide cheque return memo dated 10.02.2015. Thereafter, the complainant sent a legal notice to the Opposite Party No. 2 through registered post with A.D. but in spite of receipt of the legal notice, the accused- Opposite Party No. 2 failed to repay the cheque amount to the complainant. Hence, the present case has been filed by complainant against accused person.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the judgment dated 26.03.2021 passed by the learned Appellate Court below is illegal and not sustainable in law. It is submitted that the complainant –petitioner had given friendly loan of Rs. 2,30,000/- to the opposite party no. 2 for treatment of her daughter in-law and she had promised to return the same within a period of one year and on request, the accused-opposite party no. 2 had issued Cheque No. 858433 dated 25.01.2015 of Rs. 2,30,000/- in the name of the petitioner. However, when the said cheque was presented for encashment, then, it had returned vide Memo dated 10.02.2015 and thereafter the complainant had sent legal note by Registered Post, but the opposite party no. 2 has failed to repay the cheque amount to the complainant. It is submitted that the complainant had examined herself as C.W.-1 in this case and he has fully supported his case for advancing friendly loan of Rs. 2,30,000/- by him to the opposite party no.2 and even though opposite party no. 2 had issued cheque of Rs. 2,30,000/- on 25.01.2015 in favour of the petitioner in discharge of her legal liability. It is submitted that the documents marked as Ext.-1, Ext.- 2, Ext.-3 and Ext.-4 and 4/1 respectively fully supported the case of the complainant –petitioner, which were the cheque,