Appeal dismissed on lack of evidence and compliance with legal requirements.

The appeal against the acquittal order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, South Tripura, Belonia, where the accused was found not guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, was dismissed. The court held that the complainants failed to provide sufficient evidence, comply with legal requirements, and rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act. The court affirmed the trial court's acquittal order, emphasizing the technical nature of litigation under Section 138 and the need for specific compliance with legal provisions.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Validity of the acquittal order under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
2. Admissibility and sufficiency of evidence presented by the complainants.
3. Compliance with legal requirements under Section 138 of the NI Act.
4. Evaluation of the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act and its rebuttal.

Summary:

1. Validity of the Acquittal Order:
The appeal was filed under Sub-Section-4 of Section-378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the acquittal order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, South Tripura, Belonia. The trial court found the accused not guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and acquitted him.

2. Admissibility and Sufficiency of Evidence:
The complainants alleged that the accused issued four cheques amounting to Rs. 10,00,000 each, which were dishonored due to the closing of the account. The trial court observed that the accused successfully rebutted the mandatory presumption of law drawn in favor of the complainant. The complainants failed to provide original return memos and other necessary documents to substantiate their claims. The court noted that the complainants did not submit any documents regarding their partnership with the accused or the alleged appointment of the accused as an attorney on behalf of Vida Engineering Co. Ltd.

3. Compliance with Legal Requirements:
The court found that the legal notice issued to the accused did not specifically contain a demand for the payment of the cheque amount, which is a fundamental requirement under Section 138 of the NI Act. The notice demanded Rs. 13,50,000, whereas the cheques amounted to Rs. 40,00,000. This discrepancy rendered the notice imperfect and non-compliant with the legal requirements.

4. Presumption under Section 139 and Rebuttal:
The court emphasized that once the fundamental ingredients giving rise to a cause of action under Section 138 are established, a mandatory presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act is effected in favor of the complainant. However, the accused successfully rebutted this presumption by raising a probable defense and creating doubts about the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability. The court referred to the Apex Court's decisions in Rangappa v. Sri Mohan and Suman Sethi v. Ajay K. Churiwal, which clarified the standard of proof required to rebut the presumption under Section 139.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the complainants failed to prove their case against the accused. The trial court's order of acquittal was affirmed, and the appeal was dismissed. The court held that the judgments referred by the appellants were not relevant to the facts of the case and placed reliance on the Apex Court's decision in Suman Sethi v. Ajay K. Churiwal. The litigation under Section 138 is technical, and the scope cannot be enlarged to include settlement amounts not specified in the cheque.

---