The appellate court reviewed evidence, ruling that inconsistent testimony from the complainant did not establish a legally enforceable debt, affirming the trial court's acquittal.

JUDGMENT

This appeal by the complainant is against the acquittal of the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (‘N.I Act’ for short).

2. As per the complaint, towards discharge of a debt, the accused issued cheque dated 15.07.2009 for Rs.4,00,000/- to the complainant.

3. When the complainant presented the cheque for collection, the same was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the accused and in spite of issuance of statutory notice, the accused failed to pay the cheque amount to the complainant.

4. Before the trial court, PW1 examined and Exhibits P1 to P6 were marked from the side of the complainant and from the side of the accused, DWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exhibit D1 marked.

5. After hearing both sides and analysing the evidence, the trial court found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I Act and sentenced her to undergo simple imprisonment for two months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,02,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Against the trial court judgment, the accused filed Crl. Appeal No. 472 of 2012 and as per the impugned judgment dated 23.07.2013 of the V Additional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam, the trial court judgment was set aside and the accused was acquitted under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C.

6. Heard Sri. Akash Cherian Thomas, the learned counsel representing the learned counsel for the appellant on record, Sri. Ejaz Ashur, the learned counsel representing the learned counsel for the accused/second respondent on record and Sri. Alex M. Thombra, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor for the first respondent.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the accused has not disputed the signature in the cheque and that the Sessions Court ought to have found that minor inconsistencies in the evidence of the complainant is not sufficient for acquitting the accused and the finding in the impugned judgment that the accused has succeeded in rebutting the statutory presumptions is not legally sustainable.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant also cited the decisions of this Court inPremachandran v. Louis Antony [2023 KHC OnLine 10729],Pramod Kumar v. Seetha Baiju [ 2025 KHC OnLine 1907 ] and the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court inKalamani Tex v. P. Balasubramanian [ (2021) 5 SCC 283 ] and Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar [ (2019) 4 SCC 197 ] and argued that once the person who had drawn a cheque admits his signature in that cheque, in the absence of cogent evidence pointing to vitiating circumstances, the court has to presume that the cheque was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt.

9. The learned counsel for the accused/second respondent argued that the complainant has not disclosed the nature of the transaction or the date of execution and issuance of the cheque in the complaint or in the statutory notice and the specific case of the accused is that she was not having any previous acquaintance with the complainant and in Exhibit D1 reply notice and at the time of 313 questioning, the accused has stated that it was her husband who entrusted the cheque to one Robert as security when he borrowed Rs.6,00,000/- from the said Robert and in spite of re-payment of the loan, Robert has not returned the cheque and that the said Robert instituted this case through complainant by misusing the cheque entrusted as security by her husband to Robert.

10. In the chief affidavit of PW1, he has no case that the accused signed the cheque in his presence and according to PW1, the accused and her husband reached his house on 12.06.2009 and requested for a loan of Rs.5,00,000/- and then he promised to adv