Petition dismissed as borrower successfully rebuts Section 139 presumption in dishonored cheque case

The HC dismissed a petition seeking leave to appeal in a dishonored cheque case under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner failed to establish that he had advanced a loan to the respondent or possessed the wherewithal to lend the claimed amount, merely asserting funds came from his wife's property sale without supporting evidence. The respondent successfully rebutted the statutory presumption under Section 139 by proving through witness testimony and documentary evidence that the cheques were not issued to the petitioner. The court found no legally enforceable debt existed and affirmed the trial court's acquittal, ruling the petition was futile.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legally enforceable debt.
2. Issuance and dishonour of cheques.
3. Presumption u/s 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
4. Scope of appellate court in interfering with acquittal.

Summary:

1. Legally Enforceable Debt:
The petitioner claimed that the respondent borrowed Rs.20,00,000/- for real estate business and issued a promissory note agreeing to repay with 30% interest p.a. The respondent paid interest up to November 2015. The trial court found that the petitioner failed to establish a legally enforceable debt and acquitted the respondent.

2. Issuance and Dishonour of Cheques:
The petitioner alleged that the respondent issued four post-dated cheques, each for Rs.5,00,000/-, which were dishonoured due to "Funds Insufficient." The petitioner sent a legal notice demanding payment, which the respondent did not comply with, leading to the complaint u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

3. Presumption u/s 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act:
The petitioner argued that the presumption u/s 139 of the Act was in his favor, as the respondent did not dispute his signature on the cheques. The respondent claimed the cheques were given to one Pannerselvam and not to the petitioner. The trial court held that the petitioner did not prove the cheques were issued for discharging a legally enforceable debt, thus rebutting the presumption u/s 139.

4. Scope of Appellate Court in Interfering with Acquittal:
The High Court reiterated the principles for appellate interference with acquittal, emphasizing that the appellate court must find the trial court's view unreasonable or based on misreading of evidence. The court found that the trial court's view was reasonable and based on proper appreciation of materials. The petitioner failed to prove the loan or the legally enforceable debt, and the respondent's denial of the cheques and loan was accepted.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the petitions for leave to appeal, affirming the trial court's acquittal of the respondent. The petitioner failed to establish a legally enforceable debt or prove that the cheques were issued for discharging such a debt, making the invocation of Section 138 of the Act impermissible.

---