The presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the N.I. Act facilitates favoring complainants in dishonor cases unless convincingly rebutted by the accused.

J U D G M E N T

Complainant filed the revision petition challenging judgment in Crl.A No.99/2015 of the Sessions Court, Thalassery.

2. From the order of acquittal complainant erroneously filed the revision. This Court is satisfied that complainant filed it under an erroneous belief that no appeal lies. Since the matter is pending before this Court from 2019 onwards, this Court treats this Revision Petition as an appeal and deals with the same accordingly as provided under Section 401 (5) Cr.P.C ( Section 442 (5) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023) in order to avoid further delay in disposing the matter as sought by both sides.

3. The parties shall be referred to as the complainant and the accused as before the trial court.

4. The complainant filed the complaint alleging that Ext.P1 cheque for an amount of ₹1,50,000/- issued to him by the accused in discharge of the liability was returned dishonoured due to insufficient funds in the account of the accused and 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 .

5. Accused pleaded not guilty to the accusation and denied issuance of Ext.P1 cheque to the complainant in discharge of any debt or liability.

6. After trial, the learned Magistrate found the accused guilty under Section 138 of N.I. Act and he was convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 138 N.I. Act .

7. In appeal preferred by the accused, as Crl.A No.99/2015 before the Sessions Court, Thalassery, the learned Sessions Judge found the accused not guilty under Section 138 of N.I. Act and the conviction and sentence against the accused was set aside and the accused was acquitted.

8. The learned counsel for the complainant contended that the appellate court went wrong in its finding that the complainant failed to prove that Ext.P1 cheque was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt; that the appellate court went wrong in appreciating the evidence in its correct perspective and went wrong in not taking note of the mandatory presumption under Section 118(a) and 139 of N.I. Act .

9. The learned counsel for the accused, on the other hand, supported the finding of the appellate court.

10. The point for consideration is whether the impugned judgment of acquittal warrants any interference by this Court.

11. Before the trial court, the complainant got himself examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P5 were marked. No defence evidence was adduced by the accused.

12. The version of the complainant who was examined as PW1 is that in June, 2011 the accused borrowed a sum of ₹1,50,000/- from him and in discharge of the said debt, accused issued Ext.P1 cheque dated 14.9.2011 drawn on Mattannur Co-operative Rural Bank Ltd., Uliyil Branch. His further version is that upon presentation of Ext.P1 cheque for encashment, it was returned dishonoured on 20.9.2011 due to insufficient funds in the account of the accused. Ext.P2 is the memo issued from the bank. Upon receipt of Ext.P2 dishonour memo, he caused to send a lawyer notice to the accused. Ext.P3 is the copy of the lawyer notice. Ext.P4 is the postal receipt, Ext.P5 is the acknowledgement card. According to PW1, though the accused accepted the notice on 18.10.2011, he failed to pay the amount covered by the cheque.

13. It is not in dispute that Ext.P1 is a cheque issued from the account maintained by the accused with Mattannur Co-operative Rural Bank Ltd., Uliyil Branch. Accused has no dispute regarding his signature in Ext.P1 cheque. Ext.P2 memo issued from the bank would show t