The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the complainant to discharge the initial burden of proof in cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the rebuttable nature of presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Act.

Judgment

The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 15.1.2001 rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Indore in Cr. Case No. 210/99 whereby acquitting the appellant from the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, the Act).

2. The appellant/complainant filed a criminal complaint against the respondent on 17.4.1999 for commission of offence under Section 138 of the Act and under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code alleging that the respondent in a business transaction received Rs. 4,00,000/- on 1st December, 1998 from the appellant and issued post-dated cheques each of Rs. 1,00,000/- bearing Nos. 468535, 468537, 468538 and 468539 dated from 5.12.1998 to 5.3.1999, drawn on M.P. State Sahakari Bank, Indore. The respondent issued each cheque at an interval of one month and assured that on presentation in the Bank, the cheques would be honoured. The appellant presented those cheques in the Bank i.e. Bank of Rajasthan for encashment, but all the four cheques returned back from the concerned Bank with an endorsement of insufficient amount in the account on 24.3.1999. Appellant issued statutory notice dated 25.3.1999 which was served upon the respondent, but he, after receipt of notice, did not make any payment of the cheques amount within 15 days. Therefore, within the period of limitation, complaint was filed, wherein the appellant has prayed for conviction of the appellant and grant of compensation of double amount of the cheques.

3. Learned trial Court recorded the statement of the appellant under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. and ordered for registration of complaint under Section 138 of the Act on 5.5.1999. The respondent appeared on 4.8.1999 and furnished bail bond and security bond for appearance before the trial Court. On 11.10.1999 particulars of offence were read over to the respondent.

4. The respondent denied the allegation levelled by the appellant. He did not examine any witness in defence.

5. The case was fixed for recording of the evidence of the complainant. Appellant examined himself and two witnesses i.e. CW-2 Laxman, Officer-in-charge of Rajasthan Bank and CW-3 Sajjansingh Rajput, Accountant of M.P. Rajya Sahakari Bank, Main Branch, Indore and adduced in all 11 documents in evidence. Learned trial Court, after hearing both the parties, passed the impugned judgment of acquittal of respondent on the ground that the cheques were not bearing the signatures of respondent and firm Lalchand Bhanwarlal Chaudhary was not impleaded as party and the person who issued cheques on behalf of the firm was also not made party in the case as well as appellant failed to prove his case beyond all reasonable doubt.

6. Learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that if the firm was not made accused, the complaint cannot be dismissed when its partner is impleaded as accused and along with the firm the respondent was also the account holder in the Bank and that the appellant has proved all necessary ingredients of Section 138 of the Act beyond reasonable doubt. It is also submitted that there is presumption in favour of the appellant under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Act, relying on Supreme Court judgments rendered in the case of R. Rajgopal v. S.S. Venkat, 2001 CriLJ 3936 and Anil Hada v. Indian Acrylic Ltd. 11(1999) BC 138 (SC) and S.M. Pharmaceuticals v. Neeta Bhalla, 2007(3) MPLJ 275, and the judgment rendered by this Court in Ramraj Singh v. State of M.P., 2003(1) JLJ 2271.

7. To combat with, learned Counsel for the respondent supported the impugned judgment and finding of the trial Court and submitted that the presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Act would be attracted only when initial burden of proving the case is discharged by the appellant/complainant. Learned Counsel has placed reliance on the Supreme Court judgment passed in the cases of M/s. Naramya Menon @ Mani v. State of Kerala and An