Appeals dismissed, acquittal upheld in dishonored cheque cases. Respondent rebuts debt presumption with property deal evidence.

The appeals were dismissed, upholding the acquittal verdict in two cases involving dishonored cheques. The respondent successfully rebutted the presumption of debt under the Negotiable Instruments Act by providing evidence supporting the cheques as security for a property deal. The appellant's failure to prove the existence of a legally enforceable debt weakened their case, as the Court found the evidence insufficient to establish the debt under Section 138 of the Act. The Court declined to interfere with the Trial Court's judgment of acquittal, citing established principles and precedents.

---

---

Issues:
Appeal against acquittal in two cases involving dishonored cheques.

Analysis:
1. The appeals were filed against the order of acquittal in two cases related to dishonored cheques. The complainant alleged that the respondent borrowed and failed to repay a total of Rs. 10,00,000, leading to the issuance of two post-dated cheques. The respondent, however, claimed the cheques were given as security for a property purchase agreement.

2. The complainant contended that the respondent did not respond to the legal notice and presented a receipt as evidence, which the respondent disputed. The Trial Court acquitted the respondent due to lack of evidence, prompting the appeal. The appellant argued that the Trial Court erred in its assessment of evidence.

3. The respondent, on the other hand, maintained that the cheques were security for a property deal, supported by a sale deed and a receipt. The evidence presented aimed to rebut the presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act, shifting the burden of proof to the complainant.

4. The Trial Court, following the principles in RANGAPPA vs. SRI MOHAN and KRISHNA JANARDHAN BHAT vs. DATTATRAYA G. HEGDE, required the respondent to establish a preponderance of probabilities to rebut the presumption. The evidence provided by the respondent was deemed sufficient to counter the presumption of debt.

5. The complainant failed to prove the existence of a legally enforceable debt through reliable evidence. The absence of documentation supporting the alleged loan, combined with the inability to demonstrate the availability of funds for lending, weakened the complainant's case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

6. The Court emphasized that the Trial Court's assessment of evidence was not perverse, citing the reluctance to interfere with judgments of acquittal unless they are patently erroneous. Following the precedent in MURALIDHAR @ GIDDA AND ANOTHER vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA, the appeals were dismissed, upholding the acquittal verdict.

---