The main legal point established in the judgment is that the presumption of dishonour under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is rebuttable, and the reverse burden on the accused can be rebutted by showing sufficient funds in the account at the time of cheque presentation.

P.R. Shivakumar, J.

These appeals against acquittal have been preferred by the complainant in C.C. No. 230 of 2000 and C.C. No. 386 of 2000 instituted on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Erode for offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. As the parties in both cases are one and the same and in fact the cheques in question were allegedly issued by the respondent in these appeals in connection with and in the course of one and the same business transaction and since the issued involved in both the appeals are identical, by consent of the parties, both the appeals have been taken up for disposal by a common judgment.

2. The admitted facts leading to the filing of the complaint and initiation of criminal proceedings against the respondent herein are as follows:

(i) The respondent herein is the proprietor of Southern Electronics functioning at C.W.15 & 11, New Bus Stand Buildings, Erode-3. The appellant herein/complaint (Murali Bajaj) is the proprietor of Maya Electronics. The respondent herein/accused purchased prerecorded cassettes and blank cassettes from the appellant herein/complainant on credit basis on various dates and there was a credit balance of Rs. 4,40,023/- payable by him to the appellant herein/complainant. In partial discharge of the above said liability, the respondent herein/accused issued three cheques drawn on State Bank of India in favour of the appellant herein/complainant, the details of which are as follows:

1) Cheque No. 86609 dated 22. 2000 for a sum of Rs. 70,855/-;

2) Cheque No. 86110 dated 22. 2000 for a sum of Rs. 85,000/-;

and

3) Cheque No. 86620 dated 13. 2000 for a sum of Rs. 35,800/-

(ii) When the above said first cheque, namely cheque dated 22. 2000 bearing cheque No.86609 was presented for collection through the banker of the appellant herein/complainant, it was dishonoured. Similarly, the second cheque dated 22. 2000 bering cheque No. 86110 was also dishonoured when the same was presented for collection on 22. 2000. The third cheque dated 13. 2000, namely cheque for a sum of Rs. 35,800/- bearing cheque No. 86620 was presented on 13. 2000 and the said cheque was also dishonoured. All the three cheques were dishonoured by the bank on the instructions of the respondent herein/accused to stop payment. Thereafter, a statutory notice was issued on 3. 2000 in respect of the dishonour of the first two cheques. A separate statutory notice in respect of the third cheque was issued on 33. 2000. As the respondent herein/accused failed to make payment within 15 days after the receipt of said notices, the appellant herein/complainant preferred two separate complaints, one in respect of the first two cheques and the other in respect of the third cheque on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Erode. The same were taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Erode as C.C. Nos. 230 of 2000 and 386 of 2000 respectively.

3. The learned Judicial Magistrate issued process to the respondent herein/accused following the procedure prescribed for taking cognizance of the offences on complaint. The respondent herein/accused, on appearance, denied the charge and took a plea of defence that though the cheques were issued by him for payment of the price of the cassettes supplied by the appellant herein/complainant, he gave instructions to the bank to stop payment as the cassettes supplied by the appellant herein/complainant were defective.

4. The parties went on for trial, in which three witnesses were examined in C.C. No. 230 of 2000 as P.Ws. 1 to 3 and Exhibit P-1 to P-17 were marked on the side of the complainant. No witness was examined on the side of the respondent/accused, but Exhibit D-1 and D-2 were marked on his side in C.C. No. 230 of 2000. In C.C. No. 386 of 2000, three witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 to 3 and 13 documents were marked as Exhibit P-1 to P-13 on the side of the complainant. No witness was examined, but thr