Initial presumptions in cheque dishonor cases can be rebutted, and the acquittal of the accused was upheld due to the complainant's insufficient evidence.

ORAL JUDGMENT

The appellant/complainant has assailed the judgment passed in C.C.No.847/2016, dated 31.01.2023 by the I Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru, (hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court') whereby the learned Trial Judge acquitted the accused/respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'N.I. Act).

2. The abridged facts of the case are that, the complainant and the accused were colleagues and as such, they acquainted with each other. During the first week of March, 2013, the accused availed a hand loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from the complainant by way of cheque. The accused promised to repay the said amount within three months, however he failed to repay the amount and finally, he issued a cheque bearing No.013748 dated 06.09.2013 drawn on Axis Bank, Kuvempu Nagar Branch, Mysuru for Rs.5,00,000/-. The complainant presented the said cheque for encashment through his banker, but the same was returned with an endorsement dated 24.10.2013 as “Account Closed”. The said aspect was brought to the knowledge of the accused by issuing a legal notice dated 30.11.2013. Despite service of notice to the accused, he neither replied the said notice nor repaid the loan amount. As such, the complainant filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act before the Trial Court.

3. To prove the case, the complainant examined himself as PW.1 and marked 7 documents as Exs.P1 to P7. The accused neither examined any witness nor marked any documents on his behalf.

4. After assessment of oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Judge acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act as stated supra. The said judgment is under challenge in this appeal by the complainant.

5. Heard the learned counsel Sri Manjunath M.R., for the appellant/complainant, so also learned counsel Sri Chandrashekara K.A., for the respondent/accused.

6. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant is that the Trial Court grossly erred while acquitting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, despite the complainant placing sufficient evidence on record to prove the case. According to the learned counsel, the mandatory requirements provided under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is complied with by the complainant. Further, the accused has not disputed the cheque in question and his signature on it. In such circumstances, the initial presumption favours the complainant which was not rebutted by the accused by placing cogent evidence.

7. He also contended that the accused specifically taken the defence that the cheque-in-question was stolen from his possession by one Srinivasa and he in-turn handed over the same to the complainant, however, the accused has not lodged any complaint to that effect and also failed to examine the said Srinivasa as a witness to prove his defence. These aspects of the matter are not properly appreciated by the Trial Court, which has resulted in acquittal of the accused. Thus, he prays to allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment of acquittal and to convict the accused for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/accused contended that the Trial Court after meticulously examining the entire evidence on record passed a well-reasoned judgment, which does not warrant interference at the hands of this Court. He contended that the complainant has totally failed to prove his lending capacity of huge sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the accu