Petitioner fails to rebut statutory presumption under Sections 118 and 139 after signed cheques produced in dishonour case

Karnataka HC dismissed revision petition in dishonour of cheque case. Petitioner failed to rebut statutory presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act after cheques with his signatures were produced. Despite claiming cheques were issued to complainant's son for chit transaction and denying proper notice service, petitioner provided no documentary evidence or substantial explanation. Trial Court and First Appellate Court correctly appreciated oral and documentary evidence including credit bills. Court found no grounds for exercising revisional jurisdiction as lower courts properly considered all material evidence and no legal error occurred.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Proper service of legal notice.
2. Proof of transaction and liability.
3. Presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
4. Rebuttal of complainant's case by the accused.

Summary:

Issue 1: Proper Service of Legal Notice
The accused contended that there was no proper service of notice. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court concluded that the notice was sufficiently served based on the admission by the accused regarding the address and the postal endorsement stating 'party refused'. The revision petition argued that the notice was not properly served, but the courts found the service sufficient.

Issue 2: Proof of Transaction and Liability
The complainant, a proprietor of a business, alleged that the accused, a regular customer, purchased materials worth Rs.2,00,000/- on credit and issued three cheques towards this liability. The cheques were dishonored due to 'funds insufficient'. The complainant provided bills (Exs.P11 to P17) and other documents to substantiate the claim. The accused denied the transaction and the issuance of cheques. However, the courts noted that the accused did not provide evidence to contradict the transaction or explain the issuance of cheques.

Issue 3: Presumption Under Sections 118 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act
The Trial Court drew a presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which the accused failed to rebut. The accused did not deny the signatures on the cheques, which supported the presumption of liability. The First Appellate Court upheld this presumption, noting that the accused did not provide any explanation or evidence to counter the complainant's claims.

Issue 4: Rebuttal of Complainant's Case by the Accused
The accused argued that the complainant did not prove the transaction and that the bills did not bear signatures. The courts found that the accused did not effectively rebut the complainant's evidence. The accused's defense that the cheques were issued for a chit transaction was not substantiated in his evidence. Both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court concluded that the accused failed to rebut the presumption of liability.

Conclusion:
The Karnataka High Court found no error in the judgments of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. The courts properly appreciated the evidence and drew the correct legal presumptions. The revision petition was dismissed, affirming the conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

---