Accused successfully rebuts presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Appeal dismissed.

The court upheld the trial court's decision, ruling that the accused successfully rebutted the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The appeal was dismissed, and the parties were directed to bear their own costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Presumption in favor of the complainant under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. Rebuttal of the presumption by the accused.
3. Credibility of the defense without producing documents.
4. Appropriate action if the offense is proven.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

I. Presumption in Favor of the Complainant under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act:
The court examined whether the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act, which favors the holder of the cheque, could be applied. Section 139 presumes that the cheque was issued for discharging a debt or liability. However, this presumption is rebuttable. The court emphasized the need to consider all presumptions under the N.I. Act together, including the proviso to Section 118(g), which addresses the burden on the holder in due course.

II. Rebuttal of the Presumption by the Accused:
The accused argued that the cheque was not issued voluntarily but under duress, claiming that the accused No.3 was forced to sign the cheque at gunpoint. The trial court found shortcomings in the complainant's evidence, such as differences in signatures and inconsistencies in the sales documents. The court noted that the accused could rebut the presumption by making their defense probable, which they did by pointing out these lacunae. The court concluded that the accused successfully rebutted the presumption required under Section 139 of the N.I. Act.

III. Credibility of the Defense without Producing Documents:
The court addressed the issue of whether the defense could be believed without producing the documents referred to during cross-examination. The trial court accepted the accused's defense as probable, considering the admissions made by the complainant's witness during cross-examination. The court noted that while the primary duty to produce documents was on the accused, the complainant also had a duty to produce relevant documents to support their case. The court found that the accused's defense was credible despite not producing all the documents.

IV. Appropriate Action if the Offense is Proven:
The court discussed the implications if the offense was proven, particularly focusing on the reasons for the dishonor of the cheque. The cheque was dishonored due to insufficient funds, and the court found that the accused failed to prove that the cheque was incomplete due to a lack of required signatures. The court also addressed the issue of receipt of notice, finding that the notice was effectively served as the returned envelopes indicated refusal to accept, which amounts to acceptance.

Conclusion:
The court upheld the trial court's findings, concluding that the accused successfully rebutted the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act. The court found no reason to interfere with the trial court's judgment, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal. The parties were ordered to bear their own costs.

---