Appeal dismissed, acquittal confirmed due to cheque alterations & lack of debt proof.

The appeal was dismissed, confirming the trial court's judgment of acquittal. The accused rebutted the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by proving material alterations in the cheque and absence of accused No. 1's signature. The complainant failed to establish a legally recoverable debt, with the court finding the cheque void under Section 87 of the Act due to alterations and lack of endorsements. The dismissal of the case against accused No. 2, coupled with unreliable evidence, led to the confirmation of the acquittal.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Rebuttal of presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. Validity of the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Rebuttal of presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act:

The complainant alleged that the accused issued a cheque for Rs. 4,00,000/- to discharge a liability, which was dishonored due to insufficient funds. Despite receiving a legal notice, the accused did not repay the amount, leading to a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The trial court acquitted the accused, citing material alterations in the cheque, rendering it void under Section 87 of the N.I. Act.

The complainant argued that the trial court's judgment was arbitrary and ignored the admission of liability by accused No. 2 in a reply to the legal notice (Ex. P9). However, the respondent contended that the complaint was not tenable as the society (Sasya Shyamala Souharda Credit Co-operative Ltd.) was not made a party to the proceedings, and the cheque had material alterations without the necessary endorsements.

The court examined whether the accused rebutted the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act, which presumes that the holder of a cheque received it for the discharge of a debt or liability. The accused successfully rebutted this presumption by proving that the cheque had material alterations and was not signed by accused No. 1. The evidence showed that the complainant did not know who issued the cheque and admitted alterations in the cheque, making the transaction questionable.

2. Validity of the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court:

The trial court's judgment was based on the finding that the cheque (Ex. P1) had material alterations, making it void under Section 87 of the N.I. Act. The complainant failed to challenge the dismissal of the case against accused No. 2, who allegedly colluded with the complainant. The evidence presented by the complainant, including Ex. P9, was found to be unreliable as it was undated and lacked corroborative material.

The court concluded that the trial court correctly acquitted the accused, as the complainant did not prove the existence of a legally recoverable debt. The material alterations in the cheque and the lack of endorsement by accused No. 1 rendered the cheque void. The complainant's failure to take action against accused No. 2 further weakened the case.

Conclusion:

The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court was confirmed. The court held that the accused successfully rebutted the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act, and the complainant failed to prove the existence of a legally enforceable debt. The material alterations in the cheque and the lack of necessary endorsements made the instrument void under Section 87 of the N.I. Act.

---