Accused convicted for dishonored cheque under Section 138 NI Act despite failed defenses.

The accused was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for issuing a dishonored cheque. Despite the accused's defenses, the court found the complainant's evidence credible, establishing the debt and rejecting the accused's contentions. The accused's defense regarding the issuance of the cheque was deemed unconvincing, leading to the affirmation of the conviction and sentence by both the Trial Court and the Sessions Judge's Court. The Criminal Revision Petition was dismissed for lack of merit.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legally enforceable debt under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
2. Validity of the tax invoice and its reflection in tax returns.
3. Presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act.
4. Defence of the accused regarding issuance of the cheque.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legally enforceable debt under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881:
The petitioner, accused of purchasing gold ornaments and issuing a cheque for Rs. 13,80,000, faced conviction under Section 138 of the N.I. Act by the Trial Court and the Sessions Judge's Court. The cheque was dishonored due to insufficient funds, and despite a legal notice, the accused did not pay the amount. The courts found the accused guilty and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 16,00,000 or undergo simple imprisonment for one year.

2. Validity of the tax invoice and its reflection in tax returns:
The accused argued that the complainant did not prove the tax invoice (Ex. P-8) and did not reflect the transaction in the Commercial Tax Department, casting doubt on the sale of gold. However, the complainant provided tax returns (Ex. P-9) showing the VAT collected, including the amount from the transaction in question. The court found the complainant's documentation credible, rejecting the accused's contention.

3. Presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act:
The accused relied on judgments from the Hon'ble Apex Court, asserting that the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 is rebuttable. The burden of proof lies on the accused to show a probable defence. The complainant, supported by evidence from PW-2 (Bank Manager) and documents (Exs. P-10 to P-13), established that the accused had prior transactions with the complainant, contradicting the accused's claim of unfamiliarity.

4. Defence of the accused regarding issuance of the cheque:
The accused claimed the cheque was given as a blank signed cheque to a third party (Praveen Achar) as security, not to the complainant. However, the accused failed to provide evidence or take action against Praveen Achar for not returning the cheques. The court found the accused's defence unconvincing, noting inconsistencies in his statements and lack of immediate mention of this defence in his reply to the legal notice.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the complainant proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused issued the cheque towards a legally enforceable debt, which was dishonored due to insufficient funds. The accused's defence was deemed untenable. Both the Trial Court and the Sessions Judge's Court were found to have rightly convicted the accused and imposed a proportionate sentence. The Criminal Revision Petition was dismissed as devoid of merit, and the order was transmitted to the respective courts.

---