Back
CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
Rajani Dubey, J.
Yogendra Singh – Appellant
versus
Rajkumar Satnami – Respondent
Acquittal Appeal No.219 of 2017
Decided on 6.3.2025
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 read with Sections 118 and 139 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 395(1)(b) – Dishonour of cheque – Appeal against acquittal – Defence suggested that cheque in question was given only as a security/guarantee for payment of amount in future but in his statement, accused denied any transaction with complainant – Trial Court also considered that cheque was given as a security and dismissed complaint – Findings recorded by Trial Court are not in consonance with provisions of Sections 118 and 139 of NI Act and also are contrary to guidelines of Supreme Court – Impugned judgment of acquittal is not sustainable in law – Impugned judgment set aside and respondent/accused held guilty under Section 138 of NI Act and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1.50 lacs or else he shall suffer RI for two years – Fine so deposited by respondent/accused shall be paid to appellant/complainant as compensation under Section 395(1)(b) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. (Paras 12 and 13)
Result: Acquittal Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT (CAV)
Challenge in this appeal is to the legality and validity of the judgment dated 24.5.2017 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg in Complaint Case No.5353/2015 whereby the respondent/accused has been acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the respondent/accused being known to the appellant/complainant and there relations being cordial, in April, 2015 he requested the appellant for giving him Rs.1.10 lacs for meeting his personal needs, on which in April, 2015 the appellant/complainant gave him Rs.1.10 lacs on credit. In lieu of discharge of that liability, the respondent/accused gave him a cheque bearing No.520876 dated 4.6.2015 amounting to Rs.1.10 lacs of State Bank of India, Branch-Bhilai with the assurance that on being presented, it would be encashed. However, when the appellant/complainant presented the said cheque for encashment at State Bank of India, Branch-Bhilai where he has an account, it got dishonoured due to insufficient amount in the account of the drawer and returned to the appellant with a memo to this effect. The appellant/complainant then orally informed the respondent/accused about dishonour of the cheque and demanded his money back but the respondent/accused did not take any interest in it. Hence the appellant/complainant sent a legal notice on 16.6.2015 through his advocate to the respondent/accused which was received by him on 17.6.2015 but neither the respondent/accused made payment of the said amount nor did he reply to that notice. Therefore, the appellant/complainant filed a complaint case under Section 138 read with Section 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short “the NI Act”) against the respondent/accused.
3. Learned trial Court framed charge under Section 138 of the NI Act against the respondent/accused, to which he abjured his guilt and prayed for trial. Learned trial Court framed as many as seven issues and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, by the impugned judgment acquitted the respondent/accused of the said charge extending him benefit of doubt. Hence this appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant would submit that the impugned judgment of acquittal is per se illegal and contrary to the material available on record. The respondent/accused has failed to show that the cheque in question was not issued by him. As the respondent/accused failed in rebutting the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act, an adverse inference ought to have been drawn against him and he should have been held guilty under Section 138 of the NI Act. However, the learned trial Court without properly appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record acquitted him of the said charge. As such, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and the respondent/accused be held guilty under Section 138 of the NI Act and sentenced accordingly.
Reliance has been placed on the order dated 24.10.2019 of this Court in CRR No.327/2019 in the matter of Ambika Traders and another Vs. Roopchand and another.
5. None appears for the respondent despite service of notice.
6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on record.
7. It is clear from the record of learned trial Court that the appellant/complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act against the respondent/accused on the ground that the cheque given by the accused to him towards discharge of his debt when presented for encashment before the bank, got dishonoured. To prove his case, the complainant examined himself and filed the cheque (Ex.P/1), cheque bounce memo of the bank (Ex.P/2), legal notice (Ex.P/3), postal receipt (Ex.P/4) and the computerized acknowledgment (Ex.P/5).
8. Defence of the respondent/accused is that his name is Rajkumar Satnami whereas notice was sent by the complainant in the name of Rajkumar Satyani and he did not receive any notice. In para 9 o
Dishonour of cheque – Accused had to prove by cogent evidence that there was no debt or liability.
The presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act is rebuttable, transferring the burden to the complainant if sufficient evidence creates doubt in the case.
The complainant must establish the existence of a legally enforceable debt to sustain a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act, the burden of proof on the accused to rebut the presumption, and the requirement for the accused t....
The complainant must establish the existence of a legally enforceable debt for a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act; failure to do so results in acquittal.
The presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act establishes that a cheque is issued for a legally enforceable debt, placing the burden on the accused to rebut this presumption with a probable defense....
The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is mandatory, placing the burden on the accused to rebut the existence of a legally enforceable debt.
Dishonour of cheque – Presumption of debt is a rebuttable presumption and onus is on accused to raise probable defence – Standard of proof for rebutting presumption is that of preponderance of probab....
The burden of proof, legal presumptions, and the accused's admission of debt in the issuance of the cheque are crucial in determining liability under the Negotiable Instrument Act.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
