The court held that the accused successfully rebutted the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act, demonstrating reasonable doubt regarding the alleged loan and financial circumstances.

JUDGMENT

T. Amarnath Goud, J. - Heard Mr. B.N. Majumder, senior learned counsel assisted by Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Raju Datta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. Before this matter is taken up for hearing, an endeavour was taken before the Lok Adalat for reconciliation of the dispute, but for stiff resistance, the dispute could not be settled. The petitioner filed a complaint under Section-138 of the NI Act against the respondent, which was registered as NI 67 of 2016 against the accused-respondent. The judgment was challenged before the Appellate Court, where the judgment of the trial Court was upheld. Hence the petitioner/complainant preferred this present revision petition. Be that as it may, the fundamental grounds taken in this petition for challenging judgment and order dated 05.08.2019 delivered in Criminal Appeal No. 28(2) of 2017, by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Gomati Judicial District.

3. The facts which set the criminal law in motion, in short, are that the accused-Sri Balai Ch. Das is the friend of Sri Raju Saha, son of complainant and had good relation with the complainant and for his urgent necessity has taken loan of Rs. 30,00,000/- from the complainant with a condition to return the same within 1st week of June, 2016 but, after expiry of the period, the accused-respondent failed to pay the money and on repeated request and approach, lastly on 08.07.2016, the accused-respondent issued a cheque vide No. 610769 of Rs. 30,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Udaipur Branch from Account No. 30062030020 to indemnify the debt of accused-respondent and on 13.07.2016 the complainant deposited the said cheque for collection of the amount in his Account No. 21210110006573 at UCO Bank, Udaipur Town Branch but, on the same day the said cheque was returned due to insufficient fund in the account of the accused-respondent and on 04.08.2016 the complainant issued demand notice by registered post with A/D and accused received the said notice on 17.08.2016 but, failed to pay the money.

4. As complainant file complaint petition supporting by affidavit, for which, complainant is not examined under Section-200 of Cr. PC and being satisfied that there is prima facie sufficient materials to proceed against the accused, cognizance was taken and process was issued upon the accused and on receipt of the notice accused appeared before the Court and after observing all formalities the accused was examined under Section-251 of Cr. PC for the commission of offence punishable under Section-138 of I.I. Act but pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried

5. After closure of the evidence of the complainant, the accused-respondent examined under Section-313 Cr. PC and the incriminating materials against the accused is read over and explained to the respondent in Bengali and reply and answers to accused-respondent is accordingly recorded and the accused-respondent asserted to adduce evidence.

6. During the course of trial, the learned Court below has framed three points for determination as follows:

(i) Whether the accused Sri Balai Chandra Das on 08.07.2016 issued the cheque No. 610769 for Rs. 30,00,000/- (Rupees thirty lakhs) only in favour of complainant in discharge of hi