The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the existence of a legally enforceable debt for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, along with the rebuttable nature of presumptions under Sections 138 and 139, and the burden of proof on the accused to rebut these presumptions.

1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment in Crl.A.No.26 of 2009 dated 31.03.2010, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge of the Nilgiri District at Uthagamandalam, reversing the conviction and sentence imposed on the respondent/ accused, by the judgment dated 07.12.2009 made in S.T.C. No. 101 of 2006 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kothagiri, Nilgiri District, thereby convicting the respondent for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and pay fine of Rs.3,000/- in default, simple imprisonment for six months.

2. The facts of the private complaint preferred under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act are as follows :-

The accused issued cheque to the tune of Rs.2 lakhs dated 19.12.2005, drawn on Canara Bank, Aravenue branch towards and discharge of his liability. The complainant presented the cheque for collection and it was returned dishonoured as Insufficient funds. The complainant issued statutory notice on 31.12.2005 and the same was received by the accused on 02.01.2006. Even though after receipt of the notice, the accused did not make the payment and as such the complainant filed a complaint before the trial Court. After filing the complaint, the accused issued reply notice on 27.02.2006 denying the avernments made in the statutory notice. The complaint was taken on file and copies of the same furnished to the accused and when the offence was explained to the accused, he pleaded not guilty.

3. The complainant examined as P.W.1 and the cheque in dispute was marked as Ex.P.1; the return memo marked as Ex.P.2; the advise memo marked as Ex.P.3; the statutory notice was marked as Ex.P.4; the acknowledgement of the notice was marked as Ex.P.5; postal receipt of the said notice was marked as Ex.P.6; and the reply notice issued by the accused was marked as Ex.P.7.

4. According to the complainant, the accused issued cheque Ex.P.1 towards discharge of his liability. On presentation of the same, it was returned dishonoured as Insufficient funds. After statutory notice, the accused neither paid the cheque amount nor issued any reply notice till the filing of the complaint. After filing the complaint, the accused issued reply notice on 27.02.2006 denying the avernments made in the statutory notice.

5. On the side of the accused D.W.1 and D.W.2 were examined and marked two documents as Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2. The accused was examined himself as D.W.1 and one Mr. J.K. Johee was examined as D.W.2. D.W.2 is known to P.W.1, parted a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards his medical treatment from the complainant. At that time, the complainant requested a cheque for the purpose of security for repayment. Therefore, D.W.2 obtained the alleged blank cheque from the accused and parted the same with the complainant. Therefore, pleaded that the alleged cheque Ex.P.1 is without consideration and not issued for any legally enforceable debt.

6. The trial Court after considering all these facts and circumstances, found the accused guilty and convicted and sentenced him as stated above. As against the said conviction, the accused preferred an appeal and the appellate Court reversed the conviction and sentence and acquitted the accused. Hence, the complainant preferred this appeal as against the acquittal of the accused.

7. Heard the rival submissions made by Mr. V.Rajesh Babu, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. A.Bobblie, learned counsel for the respondent.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the issuance of cheque and signature of the cheque were not denied by the accused. It was issued only for the legally enforceable debts for the loan borrowed by the accused. As such the learned Magistrate rightly convicted the accused and sentenced him. Without considering the facts and circumstances of the cases, the first appellate Court acquitted the accused an