Court Dismisses Petition; Presumes Cheques Issued for Debt, Accused Must Disprove at Trial.

The AP HC dismissed the criminal petitions filed by the petitioner accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner contended that the cheques issued to his wife and sons were stolen and presented without consent. However, the court upheld the presumption under Section 139 that the cheques were issued for discharging a debt or liability. It ruled that the petitioner must rebut this presumption with evidence at trial, and thus, the proceedings could not be quashed at this stage. The court emphasized that the factual determination of how the cheques were obtained is reserved for trial.

---

---

Issues involved: Interpretation of Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in cases of bounced cheques issued to family members.

In the judgment by the Andhra Pradesh High Court, the petitioner, who is the accused in multiple cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, issued cheques to his wife and sons which were later bounced. The petitioner claimed that the cheques were stolen by the complainants and presented to the bank without his consent. However, the court noted that under Section 139 of the Act, there is a presumption in favor of the holder of a cheque that it was issued for the discharge of a debt or liability. The burden is on the petitioner to rebut this presumption with evidence during the trial, and at the current stage, the proceedings cannot be quashed. The court dismissed the criminal petitions, emphasizing that the issue of how the cheques came into the hands of the complainants is a question of fact to be determined during the trial.

---