The presumption of liability under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be rebutted if the accused presents sufficient evidence to create doubt regarding the existence of the debt.

JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 18.09.2017 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, South Tripura, Belonia in case No. N.I. 07 of 2015, acquitting the respondent no. 1 from the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1988.

2. The facts of the case, as projected by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, are reproduced hereunder:-

"The complainant by way of his complaint lodged his grievances wherein he stated that owing to a good and friendly relation, he gave the accused a loan for an amount of Rs. 14,00,000/-. It is stated that in discharge of the said liability, the accused provided the complainant a Cheque bearing 648416 dated 04.02.2015 of Tripura State Cooperative Bank, Belonia Branch which was presented by the later before the State Bank of India, Belonia Branch for collections through his account lying with the same. The complainant alleged that on 30.04.2015, the State Bank of India, Belonia Branch returned the said Cheque in favour of the complainant with a Memo stating that the same was dishonoured due to insufficient fund in the account of the accused. Owing the above, the complainant stated to have served one notice upon the accused asking him to pay the concerned amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the same but the accused did not even bother to reply nor made any payment of the amount due. Thus, the complainant stated to have lodged the instant Case being aggrieved with the acts and omissions of the accused".

3. Being summoned, the accused-respondent (here-in-after referred to as the respondent) appeared before the learned court and contested the claim of the complainant. The learned court taking cognizance of the complaint had framed charge against the respondent. The complainant had led evidence. He was cross-examined by the respondent. In defence, the respondent also had produced three witnesses including himself.

4. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, dismissed the complaint and acquitted the accused vide judgment and order, as aforestated. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment of acquittal passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, the complainant has preferred the instant appeal before this court.

5. In course of hearing of the present appeal, I have heard Mr. PK Biswas, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. S. Debbarma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-complainant (here-in-after referred to as the complainant). Also heard Ms. R. Purkayastha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 1 and Mr. S. Ghosh, learned Additional PP appearing on behalf of the State-respondent.

7. I have gone through the contents made in the complaint application, examined the records and also perused the judgment passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate.

8. From the judgment of the learned trial court, it comes to light that the learned trial court has taken up the following points for determination:

"Whether the accused issued one Cheque bearing No. 648416 dt. 04.02.2015 to the complainant for an amount of Rs. 14,00,000/- in discharge of his liabilities which was subsequently dishonoured for insufficiency of funds in his account, as the complainant presented the same for collection through his account and that after receipt of appropriate legal notice, the accused failed to repay the amount within the stipulated period and that he thereby committed an offence punishable U/S-138 of The Negotiab