Petition to Appeal Acquittal in Negotiable Instruments Act Case Dismissed; Cheque Liability Not Proven.

The HC dismissed the Criminal Original Petition seeking leave to appeal against the acquittal of the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Trial Court found that the respondent successfully rebutted the presumption under Section 139, and the petitioner failed to prove the cheque was issued for a legally subsisting liability. Consequently, the HC upheld the Trial Court's decision, denying the petitioner's request to appeal.

---

---

Issues:
1. Granting leave to prefer an appeal against the judgment of acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Detailed Analysis:
The Criminal Original Petition was filed seeking permission to appeal against the acquittal of the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner contended that the respondent admitted issuing the cheque but claimed it was for a different purpose, contrary to the presumption under Section 139 of the Act. The petitioner argued that the cheque was issued as security for a loan, which was later repaid, leading to a dispute over interest and the subsequent complaint. The petitioner sought leave to appeal based on these grounds.

The petitioner alleged that the respondent borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 and issued a cheque for Rs. 3,21,327, which bounced due to insufficient funds. The petitioner served a notice under Section 138(b) of the Act, but the respondent did not respond or repay the amount, resulting in the complaint. The Trial Court noted that the respondent rebutted the presumption under Section 139 by presenting evidence and witness testimonies to support their claim that the cheque was not issued for the alleged debt but as a security for a different transaction.

Upon review, it was found that the petitioner failed to provide evidence supporting the alleged loan transaction, such as documentation or proof of capacity to lend the amount claimed. Additionally, inconsistencies were noted, as the petitioner, during cross-examination, did not disclose the alleged loan in his income tax returns despite claiming to be an Income Tax assessee. The Trial Court concluded that the respondent successfully rebutted the presumption under Section 139, shifting the burden of proof to the petitioner, who failed to establish the cheque was issued to discharge a legally subsisting liability.

Based on the above considerations, the Court held that there was no valid reason to grant leave to appeal against the acquittal. Consequently, the Criminal Original Petition was dismissed, upholding the Trial Court's decision.

---