The court upheld that a dishonored cheque creates a presumption of liability unless adequately rebutted, reinforcing the legal principles under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

O R D E R

Revision Petitioner is the accused in S.T.C No.4285/2011 on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kuthuparamba and she is the appellant in Crl.Appeal No.433/2013 of Sessions Court, Thalassery. In this revision, she assails the judgment of conviction and order of sentence against her for the offence punishable under Section

138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'N.I.Act')

2. The parties shall be referred to as complainant and accused as shown in S.T.C No.4285/2011.

3. The complainant filed the complaint stating that the accused obtained an amount of ₹1,50,000/- from him, promising to arrange a job abroad for his daughter. But the accused failed to arrange the job as promised. When demanded back the amount, accused issued Ext.P1 cheque to the complainant in discharge of the said liability. Upon presentation of Ext.P1 cheque before the bank for encashment, it was returned dishonoured due to insufficient funds in the account of the accused. In spite of receipt of Ext.P3 lawyer notice, accused failed to pay the amount covered by Ext.P1 cheque and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I Act.

4. Accused pleaded not guilty and denied the liability to pay any amount to the complainant and also denied the issuance of Ext.P1 cheque to the complainant.

5. Evidence consists of the oral testimonies of PW1, DW1 and DW2 and documents marked as Ext.P1 to Ext.P6, Exts.D1 and D2.

6. After trial, the learned Magistrate found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I Act and he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay an amount of ₹1,50,000/- as compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C., in default of which to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 45 days. Though the accused preferred Crl.A No.433/2013 before the Sessions Court, Thalassery, the appeal was dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence.

7. Whether the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence needs any interference by this Court is the point for consideration in this revision.

8. The version of the complainant who was examined as PW1 is that the accused obtained an amount of ₹1,00,000/- on 5.4.2011 from him and collected the certificates and the passport of his daughter. Subsequently, on 30.6.2011, a further sum of ₹50,000/- was again paid to the accused. But the accused failed to arrange a job as promised.

When demanded back the amount, accused issued Ext.P1 cheque to him in discharge of the said liability. According to PW1, upon presentation of Ext.P1 cheque before the bank for encashment, it was returned dishonoured for want of sufficient funds in the account of the accused. Upon receipt of Ext.P2 memo, he caused to sent Ext.P3 lawyer notice to the accused. Ext.P4 is the postal receipt and Ext.P5 is the acknowledgment card. According to PW1, in spite of receipt of Ext.P3 notice, accused failed to pay the amount covered by Ext.P1 cheque instead, he sent Ext.P6 reply notice raising false contentions.

9. Admittedly, Ext.P1 is a cheque issued from the account maintained by the accused with Syndicate Bank, Manathavady. Ext.P2 memo issued from the bank would show that Ext.P1 cheque was dishonoured due to insufficient funds in the account of the accused. Accused has no dispute over her signature in Ext.P1 cheque. Thus, it stands established that Ext.P1 cheque was dishonoured due to insufficient funds in the account of the accused.

10. As against the version of the complainant that Ext.P1 cheque was issued by the accused in discharge of the liability to pay an amount of ₹1,50,000/- due to him, the defence canvassed by the accused is that there