Court confirms acquittal in dishonored cheque case; accused rebuts presumption under section 139

The High Court upheld the order of acquittal in a case involving a dishonored cheque issued by the accused for air tickets. The accused successfully rebutted the presumption under section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by demonstrating the lack of evidence regarding the supply of three tickets. The court found the complainant's evidence lacking credibility, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and confirming the accused's acquittal.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the accused issued the cheque in discharge of a legal debt or liability.
2. Whether the presumption u/s 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was rebutted by the accused.
3. Whether the Trial Court erred in acquitting the accused.

Summary:

Issue 1: Whether the accused issued the cheque in discharge of a legal debt or liability.
The accused, Ashwani Kumar, approached the complainant, M/s. N. Chirag Travels (P) Ltd., for the purchase of air tickets. The tickets were supplied and received by the accused, who issued a cheque for Rs. 56,690/- as consideration. The cheque was dishonored due to "Stop payment." Despite receiving a demand notice, the accused failed to pay the cheque amount, leading to a complaint u/s 138 of the N.I. Act, 1881. The accused contended that he issued the cheque as an advance payment for three tickets but received only one ticket.

Issue 2: Whether the presumption u/s 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was rebutted by the accused.
The applicant argued that u/s 139 of the N.I. Act, there is a presumption in favor of the holder of the cheque that it was issued in discharge of a liability. The accused must prove otherwise. The Trial Court found that the applicant failed to establish the supply of three tickets. The invoices were not convincing, and adverse inference was drawn due to the non-examination of the beneficiaries of the other two tickets. The accused admitted liability for one ticket and was ready to pay for it, which indicated honesty on his part.

Issue 3: Whether the Trial Court erred in acquitting the accused.
The High Court noted that the presumptions u/s 118(a) and 139 of the N.I. Act are rebuttable. The accused can rebut the presumption by raising a probable defense or discrediting the complainant's case. The accused successfully rebutted the presumption by showing that the complainant failed to prove the delivery of three tickets. The invoices were suspicious, and the complainant did not produce crucial witnesses or original documents. The High Court upheld the Trial Court's finding that the complainant could not prove the existence of any debt or liability of the accused.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the application for special leave to appeal, upholding the order of acquittal. The complainant failed to prove the culpability of the accused, and the presumption u/s 139 of the N.I. Act was successfully rebutted by the accused.

---