Court overturns acquittal, convicts accused in dishonored cheque case. Accused to pay Rs. 1,55,00,000/- within 8 weeks.

The Court found that the Trial Court erred in acquitting the accused in a case involving dishonored cheques under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainant successfully proved the issuance of the cheques and the accused's failure to rebut the legal presumption. Consequently, the accused was convicted and ordered to pay Rs. 1,55,00,000/- to the complainant within eight weeks, with a two-year Simple Imprisonment term in default. The Trial Court was instructed to secure the accused if the payment was not made promptly.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Trial Court erred in acquitting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act).
2. Determination of the appropriate order.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Whether the Trial Court erred in acquitting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act.

The appeals were filed by the complainant challenging the judgments of acquittal in four cases where the accused was acquitted by the Trial Court. The complainant contended that the accused, who had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to procure land, failed to secure the lands and issued cheques towards the refund of the amount received, which were dishonored due to "Insufficient Funds." The complainant filed complaints under Section 138 of the NI Act after the accused failed to repay the cheque amount.

The Trial Court acquitted the accused, reasoning that the complainant should have approached the Civil Court for specific performance of the contract and that the cheques were issued as security, not for discharging any debt. The complainant's counsel argued that the MOU specified the receipt of the amount by the accused, who failed to act upon it, and the cheques were issued for refund. The counsel relied on several judgments, including *Ripudaman Singh v. Balkrishna* and *Rangappa v. Mohan*, to support the claim that cheques issued in pursuance of an agreement constitute legally enforceable debt or liability.

The Court noted that the accused did not lead any defense evidence but cross-examined the complainant. The complainant's evidence was consistent with the complaint averments and the documents marked. The Court emphasized that the accused did not dispute the issuance of cheques or reply to the notice, mandating the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act. The Trial Court's reliance on civil remedy and the assumption that cheques were issued as security was found erroneous.

The Court referred to the principles laid down in *Rangappa's case*, where the presumption of legally recoverable debt or liability is mandatory if the cheques are not disputed and no reply is given. The accused failed to rebut the presumption effectively, either through cross-examination or by leading evidence. The Court also highlighted the erroneous application of precedents by the Trial Court, particularly the misinterpretation of the *Krishna Janardhan Bhat v. Dattatraya G. Hegde* judgment.

Issue 2: Determination of the appropriate order.

The Court concluded that the Trial Court erred in acquitting the accused, as the complainant had established the issuance of cheques and the failure of the accused to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act. The appeals were allowed, and the judgments of acquittal were set aside. The accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act and directed to pay Rs. 1,55,00,000/- to the complainant within eight weeks, failing which the accused would undergo Simple Imprisonment for two years. The Trial Court was directed to secure the accused if the payment was not made.

Order:
1. The appeals are allowed.
2. The impugned judgments of acquittal are set aside.
3. The accused is convicted under Section 138 of the NI Act.
4. The accused is directed to pay Rs. 1,55,00,000/- to the complainant within eight weeks, failing which he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for two years.
5. The Trial Court is directed to secure the accused if he fails to pay the amount.
6. The Registry is directed to transmit the Trial Court records forthwith.

---