Petition Granted, Acquittal Secured through Rebuttal of Presumption

Prem Singh Rohila Versus State of Haryana and Another

Prem Singh Rohila Versus State of Haryana and Another - TMI Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to the judgment of conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. Presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
3. Financial capacity of the complainant to advance the loan.
4. Failure of the accused to respond to the legal notice.
5. Burden of proof and rebuttal of presumption by the accused.
6. Evaluation of evidence and cross-examination of both parties.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Challenge to the Judgment of Conviction and Sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act:
The petitioner challenged the impugned judgment dated 04.03.2021 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, and the judgment of conviction dated 17.12.2019 and order of sentence dated 19.12.2019 by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Panipat. The petitioner was convicted for offenses under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to six months imprisonment and ordered to pay Rs. 2,02,500 as compensation to the complainant.

2. Presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act:
Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act raises a statutory presumption in favor of the holder of a cheque. The court must presume the cheque was issued for the discharge of any debt or liability unless the contrary is proved. This presumption is a rebuttable presumption, and the burden shifts to the accused to dispel it.

3. Financial Capacity of the Complainant to Advance the Loan:
The complainant alleged that he advanced Rs. 1,35,000 to the accused without any written endorsement. However, during cross-examination, the complainant admitted he had no proof of income or any written receipt for the transaction. The complainant's monthly income was Rs. 15,000, and he lived in rented accommodation, raising doubts about his financial capacity to lend such an amount.

4. Failure of the Accused to Respond to the Legal Notice:
The accused did not respond to the mandatory legal notice issued by the complainant, which was argued to be an indication of acceptance of liability. However, the accused contended that the cheque was stolen and misused by the complainant, and he had no dealings with the complainant.

5. Burden of Proof and Rebuttal of Presumption by the Accused:
The accused argued that the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Act was rebuttable and that the complainant failed to prove the cheque was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt. The accused presented an affidavit stating the cheque was stolen from his shop, and the complainant failed to provide any evidence to the contrary.

6. Evaluation of Evidence and Cross-examination of Both Parties:
The complainant failed to provide any concrete evidence or witnesses to support the alleged loan transaction. The accused's affidavit and cross-examination revealed inconsistencies in the complainant's statements. The trial court's judgment was found to be mechanical and not based on an objective assessment of the evidence.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the petitioner successfully rebutted the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainant failed to prove the existence of a legally enforceable debt and his financial capacity to lend the amount. The judgments of the lower courts were set aside, and the petitioner was acquitted. The petition was allowed.