Respondent convicted under Section 138, fined Rs. 1,00,000. Appeal granted, case remanded.

The court found the respondent guilty of the offense under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial court's decision was overturned, and the respondent was convicted, with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000 imposed. The appeal was granted, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legally enforceable debt or liability.
2. Presumption under Section 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
3. Issuance and validity of a blank cheque.
4. Appreciation of evidence by the trial court.
5. Defence of the accused regarding loan repayment.

Summary:

1. Legally Enforceable Debt or Liability:
The appellant-complainant alleged that the respondent-accused took a loan for purchasing a vehicle and issued a cheque which was dishonored due to insufficient funds. The trial court dismissed the complaint, holding that the accused raised a probable defense, creating doubt about the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability.

2. Presumption under Section 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act:
The appellant argued that since the respondent admitted issuing the cheque and signing it, the presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act should be drawn in favor of the appellant. The court noted that Section 139 presumes that the holder of a cheque received it for the discharge of any debt or liability unless proven otherwise. The Supreme Court's rulings in M/S M.M.T.C. Ltd. v. M/S Medchi Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. and Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar were cited to support this position.

3. Issuance and Validity of a Blank Cheque:
The trial court's observation that the cheque was a blank cheque and thus not legally enforceable was contested. The court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar, which held that even a signed blank cheque, if voluntarily presented to a payee, can be filled up and does not invalidate the cheque. The Kerala High Court in General Auto Sales v. Vijaylakshmi and the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Amarjit Singh v. Mohinder Singh also supported this view.

4. Appreciation of Evidence by the Trial Court:
The appellant contended that the trial court misdirected itself in appreciating the evidence on record. The court found that the trial court gave undue weightage to the statements of the defense witnesses and failed to properly consider the evidence presented by the complainant.

5. Defence of the Accused Regarding Loan Repayment:
The respondent-accused claimed that the loan was repaid and the cheque was given as security. However, the court noted that the respondent did not provide evidence of demanding the return of the cheque or taking steps to recover it. The court found that the respondent's defense was not substantiated by cogent evidence.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the complainant successfully proved the commission of the offense under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The trial court's judgment was set aside, and the respondent was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000. The appeal was allowed, and the trial court record was sent down for follow-up action.

---