Supreme Court affirms acquittal in dishonored cheque case, rejecting loan presumption.

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's acquittal of the respondent in a case concerning a dishonored cheque. The High Court found that the cheque was issued as security for milk supply, not for loan repayment, rebutting the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act. The respondent successfully proved that the cheque was not for a lawful debt, shifting the burden from the complainant. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, citing inconsistencies in the complainant's case and the respondent's credible defense, ultimately dismissing the appeal and confirming the respondent's acquittal.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Legitimacy of the cheque issued by the respondent.
2. Presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act.
3. Burden of proof on the complainant and the accused.
4. Validity of the High Court's reversal of the lower courts' judgments.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legitimacy of the Cheque Issued by the Respondent:

The complainant-appellant alleged that the respondent-accused borrowed Rs. 1,15,000 and issued a cheque dated 14.08.2007 for repayment, which was dishonored due to 'insufficient funds'. The respondent contended that the cheque was issued as security for milk supply and not for repayment of a loan. The High Court found that the cheque was issued as security and not for a loan repayment, leading to the acquittal of the respondent.

2. Presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act:

Sections 118(a) and 139 of the N.I. Act create presumptions in favor of the holder of the cheque, assuming it was issued for consideration and discharge of debt unless proven otherwise. The Supreme Court emphasized that these presumptions are rebuttable. The High Court's judgment considered the respondent's defense that the cheque was for security, not repayment, and found it reasonably probable, thus rebutting the presumption.

3. Burden of Proof on the Complainant and the Accused:

The complainant must initially prove the existence of debt or liability. Once the signature on the cheque is admitted, the burden shifts to the accused to prove that the cheque was not for debt repayment but for another purpose, such as security. The Supreme Court cited K.N. Beena v. Muniyappan, emphasizing that the accused must prove the cheque was not for a lawful debt. The High Court found that the respondent successfully discharged this burden by showing the cheque was issued as security.

4. Validity of the High Court's Reversal of the Lower Courts' Judgments:

The High Court reversed the lower courts' judgments, which had convicted the respondent based on the complainant's version. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, noting significant inconsistencies in the complainant's case, such as the absence of the loan date and the immediate presentation of the cheque. The High Court rightly concluded that the complainant failed to prove the cheque was for a lawful debt, and the respondent's defense was reasonably probable.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's acquittal of the respondent, emphasizing the rebuttable nature of presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act and the importance of the accused's burden to prove the cheque was not for debt repayment. The inconsistencies in the complainant's case and the credible defense presented by the respondent justified the High Court's decision to set aside the lower courts' judgments. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the respondent's acquittal.

---