The presumptions under sections 138 and 139 of the NI Act favor the holder, shifting the burden to the accused to rebut the claims of liability.

JUDGMENT

Deepak Gupta, J.

CRM-172-2020

Application is allowed.

Annexures A1 to A4 are taken on record.

CRM-A-70-2020

Leave to appeal is hereby granted.

Registry is directed to assign number to the appeal.

CRA-AS-445-2023.

In criminal complaint bearing CIS No. NACT 272/2016 filed by the petitioner-Suresh Kumar Goyal to prosecute the accused-Darshan Singh (now respondent) under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [for short 'the NI Act'], the said accused has been acquitted by the Court of ld. JMIC, Dhuri vide judgment dated 06.12.2018.

2. Aggrieved against the said acquittal, complainant approached this Court by way of present appeal.

3. Perusal of the record reveals that it was alleged by the complainant that he was the proprietor of the firm M/s Aggarwal Chips and Marble Store, dealing in chips and marbles. On 25.03.2016, accused along with his relatives came to the complainant and purchased certain items like tiles, grouting, sheets, washbasin etc.for an amount of Rs.2,31,000/-. Accused requested the complainant to keep the articles with him and that he shall lift the same within 4-5 days and issued cheque No.002436 dated 25.03.2016 for Rs.2,31,000/- out of his account, drawn on Corporation Bank, Branch Nabha, favoring the complainant. On 31.03.2016, accused lifted the material purchased by him and on his demand original bill No.5894 dated 31.03.2016 was issued to him. Complainant presented the cheque with his banker i.e., Punjab National Bank, Main Branch, Dhuri, but the same was returned back as dishonored with memo dated 07.05.2016 for the reason "funds insufficient". When accused was confronted, he requested the complainant to present the cheque again with the assurance of encashment. On this assurance, complainant again presented the cheque, but the same was dishonoured vide return memo dated 12.05.2016 for the same reason i.e., "funds insufficient". Complainant then served legal notice dated 03.06.2016 and sent the same to the accused through registered post asking for the cheque amount to be paid within 15 days from the date of receipt for the notice. However, despite the said notice, accused failed to make payment. With these allegations, the complaint was filed on 13.07.2016. After recording preliminary evidence, accused was summoned to face trial under section 138 of the NI Act. On his appearance, he was served with notice of accusation under section 138 of the NI Act on 19.01.2018, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Application moved by the accused under section 145(2) of the NI Act was allowed. Complainant appeared in the witness box and faced cross-examination and then concluded the evidence. Statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, confronting him with all the incriminating material against him. He controverted the same and pleaded innocence. According to him, he had never purchased marble, floor tiles etc. from the complainant and that cheque in question had been misused by the complainant after obtaining the same from President of Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee, Doda, as he (accused) had a dispute with Raghbir Singh, President of Gurudwara Parbandhak Committee. He denied any liability. He opted to adduce evidence in defence, but closed the same without producing any evidence.

4. After hearing both the parties and appraising record, ld. trial Court recorded acquittal vide impugned judgment dated 06.12.2018.

5. Challenging the aforesaid acquittal by way of this appeal, it is contended by ld. counsel that accused had never denied his signature on the cheque and so there was presumption in favour of the complainant under section 139 of t