Once the signature on a cheque is admitted, the statutory presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act shifts the burden to the accused to rebut it with cogent evidence; a mere plea of 'security cheques' without proof is insufficient.

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case is filed challenging the order dated 19.04.2022 passed in Crl.A.No.252 of 2015 by the learned II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

The brief facts of the case are that the case arises out of a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act alleging that the accused, who was known to the complainant, borrowed a total sum of Rs.20,00,000/- in January 2012 in two instalments and executed promissory notes in favour of the complainant, promising repayment within one month; upon failure to repay, the accused issued two cheques dated 13.06.2012 for Rs.10,00,000/- each, which, when presented, were dishonoured for “insufficient funds,” leading to issuance of statutory notices and, upon non-payment, filing of the complaint; the trial Court, after considering the evidence of the complainant and supporting witnesses and rejecting the defence of the accused that the cheques were issued as security in another transaction, convicted the accused and sentenced him to one year simple imprisonment and directed payment of fine/compensation; aggrieved thereby, the accused preferred the appeal contending false implication, misuse of blank cheques and promissory notes, lack of legally enforceable debt, and improper appreciation of evidence, while the complainant maintained that all statutory requirements were complied with and the presumption under law stood unrebutted.

Challenging the said dismissal order, the petitioner has filed the present Criminal Revision Case.

Heard Sri K. Sai Babu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri M. Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent – State and Sri K.V. Rajasree, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the the judgments of both the Courts below are contrary to law and evidence and resulted in miscarriage of justice and that the complainant failed to establish the existence of a legally enforceable debt beyond reasonable doubt and that the Courts below erred in placing reliance on the uncorroborated oral evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and documents marked as Exs.P1 to P16. He further submitted that the defence version, supported by DWs.1 to 3 and Exs.D1 to D3, was not properly appreciated, and the statutory presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act was wrongly drawn in favour of the complainant. He contended that the cheques were misused and not issued towards discharge of any liability, and that the petitioner had already paid a substantial portion of the amount. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the order of the trial Court by allowing this Criminal Revision Case.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that both the trial Court and the appellate Court have rightly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and recorded concurrent findings of guilt and that the complainant successfully proved the transaction, issuance of cheques, their dishonour, and compliance with statutory requirements under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He further submitted that once the issuance and signature on the cheques are admitted, the presumption under law operates in favour of the complainant, and the petitioner failed to rebut the same with cogent evidence. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the Criminal Revision Case.

In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the plea of the complainant that the accused borrowed a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- and issued the subject cheques towards discharge of the said legally enforceable debt is duly supported by both oral and documentary evidence. The complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and also examined attestors to the promissory notes as P.Ws.2 and 3, and marked Exs.P1 to P16, which clearly establish the transaction, execut