Appellant prevails proving cheque issued to discharge debt; respondent's defense fails under Section 139, convicted under Section 138.

The court found the appellant proved the cheque was issued to discharge a legally recoverable debt. The respondent's defense was deemed implausible and unsubstantiated, failing to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act. The judgment was set aside, and the respondent was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Existence of legal liability for the cheque issued.
2. Whether the cheque was issued towards discharge of a legally recoverable debt.
3. The defense of the accused regarding the issuance of the cheque.
4. The credibility of the witnesses and evidence presented.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Existence of Legal Liability for the Cheque Issued:
- The appellant claimed that the respondent purchased a property and issued a cheque for Rs. 5,00,000 as part of the payment, which was dishonored due to "insufficient funds".
- The appellant served a legal demand notice, but the respondent did not make the payment, leading to the filing of a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
- The learned Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) acquitted the respondent, stating that the appellant failed to show any legal liability on the part of the respondent for which the cheque was issued.

2. Whether the Cheque was Issued Towards Discharge of a Legally Recoverable Debt:
- The appellant argued that the cheque was part of the balance payment for the property sold to the respondent.
- The respondent claimed that the cheque was issued as security for outstanding electricity dues, which the appellant was supposed to clear.
- The learned MM found discrepancies in the appellant's claim, noting that the sale deed recorded the consideration as Rs. 4,00,000, but the appellant claimed Rs. 20,00,000 with Rs. 15,00,000 received in cash.
- The court observed that the appellant did not explain how the remaining Rs. 1,00,000 was to be recovered, and the claim of Rs. 1,00,000 for building material was not mentioned in the sale deed, legal notice, or complaint.

3. The Defense of the Accused Regarding the Issuance of the Cheque:
- The respondent stated that the cheque was issued as security for electricity dues and handed over to a broker, Surender Kumar.
- The learned MM rejected this defense, finding it against the natural course of human behavior, as the obligation to pay electricity dues was on the appellant.
- The appellant's counsel argued that the respondent's defense was unsubstantiated, as no receipt or witness was produced to support the claim of cash payment.
- The court noted that the respondent did not take any action against Surender Kumar or issue stop payment instructions, which weakened his defense.

4. The Credibility of the Witnesses and Evidence Presented:
- The appellant examined himself and his son as witnesses, while the respondent examined two witnesses, Malkeet Singh and Kewal Singh.
- The court found the defense witnesses unreliable, as they lacked personal knowledge of the transaction and did not provide credible evidence.
- The learned MM observed that the appellant's claim of receiving the cheque alone was contradicted by his son's testimony, creating a discrepancy.
- The court emphasized that the accused's statement under Section 313 CrPC is not evidence and must be corroborated by other evidence, which was not done in this case.

Conclusion:
- The court concluded that the appellant proved beyond reasonable doubt that the cheque was issued in discharge of a legally recoverable debt.
- The respondent's defense was found implausible and unsubstantiated.
- The presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act was not rebutted by the respondent.
- The impugned judgment was set aside, and the respondent was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

---