Court confirms acquittal in Section 138 case. Accused not guilty. Failure to prove debt.

The court upheld the trial court's judgment of acquittal, confirming that the accused was not guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The complainant failed to prove the existence of a legally recoverable debt, and the accused successfully rebutted the presumption under Section 139 with credible evidence. The procedural error of not impleading the firm further weakened the complainant's case, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and confirmation of the trial court's order.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Capacity and factum of payment of Rs. 21.00 lakh by the complainant.
2. Presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act.
3. Rebuttal of presumption by the accused.
4. Issuance of cheque by the firm/company and non-impleadment of the firm.
5. Evidence to disbelieve the complainant's statement.
6. Legally recoverable debt or liability.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Capacity and Factum of Payment of Rs. 21.00 Lakh by the Complainant:
The trial court observed that the complainant failed to prove his capacity to lend Rs. 21.00 lakh. The complainant did not produce any bank documents or other evidence to show he had such a large amount. He claimed the amount was given in cash, but no credible evidence supported this claim. The complainant's admission that he did not withdraw the amount from a bank and his failure to provide any documentation of the transaction further weakened his case.

2. Presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act:
The complainant argued that once the issuance of the cheque and signature on it were admitted, there was a statutory presumption under Section 139 in his favor. However, the court noted that this presumption is rebuttable and the accused can challenge it by preponderance of probabilities. The court emphasized that the initial burden is on the complainant to prove the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability.

3. Rebuttal of Presumption by the Accused:
The accused successfully rebutted the presumption by providing plausible evidence and cross-examining the complainant. The accused demonstrated that the cheque was given as security for a loan taken by his relative, which was repaid. The complainant's admission of holding six other cheques from the accused and the lack of any interest or security documents for such a large loan further supported the accused's defense. The court found the accused's explanation credible and consistent with the evidence presented.

4. Issuance of Cheque by the Firm/Company and Non-impleadment of the Firm:
The cheque in question was issued by the accused as a proprietor of ADAL Audio & Visual. However, the firm was not made a party to the complaint. The court noted that without making the firm a party, the complaint could not be maintained. This procedural lapse significantly impacted the complainant's case.

5. Evidence to Disbelieve the Complainant's Statement:
The complainant's failure to produce witnesses who allegedly were present during the transaction and his inconsistent statements raised doubts about his credibility. The court also noted discrepancies in the complainant's legal notice and the lack of any inquiry into why the payment was stopped by the drawer.

6. Legally Recoverable Debt or Liability:
The court emphasized that the complainant must prove the existence of a legally recoverable debt or liability. The complainant's inability to provide substantial evidence of the loan transaction and the accused's successful rebuttal of the presumption led the court to conclude that there was no legally enforceable debt or liability.

Conclusion:
The court found that the complainant failed to discharge the initial burden of proving the existence of a legally recoverable debt. The accused successfully rebutted the presumption under Section 139 by providing credible evidence and demonstrating the improbability of the complainant's claims. The procedural lapse of not impleading the firm further weakened the complainant's case. Consequently, the court upheld the trial court's judgment of acquittal, confirming that the accused was not guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The appeal was dismissed, and the trial court's order was confirmed.

---