In cheque dishonour cases, the burden of proof lies on the accused to rebut the presumption of issuance for a debt, emphasizing compensatory justice over punitive measures.

ORDER :

(E.V. Venugopal, J.)

1. This criminal revision case is filed challenging the legality and validity of the judgment dated 30.12.2013 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 208 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court), Hyderabad, wherein and whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed in C.C. No. 247 of 2011 by the learned XIV Special Magistrate, Hyderabad upon the petitioner to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and also to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act.

2. The second respondent herein instituted a private complaint against the petitioner under Section 200 Cr.P.C. alleging that the petitioner took hand loan of Rs. 2.00 lakhs from the second respondent to meet his urgent necessities on 02.01.2006. The petitioner executed a promissory note agreeing to repay the loan amount within a period of three months. The petitioner issued a cheque bearing No. 781823 dated 30.5.2006 for a sum of Rs. 2.00 lakhs drawn on Vysya Bank, Bidar branch, towards discharge of the hand loan. However, on presentation, the cheque was dishonoured with an endorsement 'account closed'. Thereupon, the second respondent issued a notice dated 13.7.2006, to the petitioner, which was returned with an endorsement 'refused'. Hence the complaint.

3. The case of the petitioner is total denial. However, there is no dispute with regard to the cheque. But it is the case of the petitioner that he lost his cheque book. The second respondent foisted a false case against the petitioner by using the unused cheques available in the said lost cheque book. It is also his contention that he has no acquaintance with the second respondent and he had never seen him. On the contrary, the case of the second respondent was that he got acquaintance with the petitioner through his relative by name Takaji. As seen from the record, the said Takaji was not examined in the Court.

4. If really, being a literate, the petitioner lost his cheque book, he ought to have lodged a complaint with the police or should have intimated to his banker in that connection. But he did not explain what steps he has taken in that regard. No prudent man will keep quiet if he lost his cheque book.

5. The normal and usual practice and procedure is that when an account was intended to be closed, the bank authorities take back the debit cards and cheque books connected to the said account from the account holder. In the instant case the case of the second respondent was that the cheque was returned with an endorsement 'account closed'. So the version of the petitioner in this regard seems to be improbable and unbelievable.

6. The petitioner has not stated where he lost his cheque book. The petitioner is resident of Bidar and the second respondent is resident of Hyderabad. It is also not explained how second respondent came into possession of the cheque book. No enmity was also attributed to the second respondent with the petitioner. So the contention of the petitioner that the second respondent forged the signatures of the petitioner and fabricated the contents of the cheque does not hold water.

7. It is the contention of the second respondent that the petitioner executed an on demand promissory note in his favour, acknowledging the loan amount. The signatures of the petitioner on the promissory note and the cheque also tallied and there was no ambiguity on this.

8. It is also to be seen that the legal notice addressed by the second respondent was returned with an endorsement 'refused'. So the petitioner must have knowledge about the contents of the notice. If at all he has no acquaintance with the second respondent, what prompted him to refuse the legal notice, was also left unanswered. So, it has to be presumed that the petitioner approached the second respondent at Hyderabad in order t