TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (12) TMI 668
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. The accused faced trial for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the NI Act'). It was alleged that he borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the complainant on 5.10.2008 and towards the discharge of the same, he issued Ext. P1 cheque. The cheque on presentation was returned as dishonoured for want of sufficient funds and on receipt of statutory notice demanding the cheque amount, the accused has not paid the same. Hence, the prosecution was launched under Section 138 of the NI Act. 3. The complainant himself gave evidence as PW1. A witness was examined as PW2. Exts. P1 to P8 were marked. On appreciation of evidence, the trial court found the accused guilty of the offence punishab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that both the courts below concurrently believed the oral testimony of PW1 and PW2 and this Court in revision is not expected to re-appreciate the evidence. 6. The definite case of the complainant is that the accused is his friend and out of the said friendship the accused borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- from him on 5.10.2008 and towards the discharge of the said amount, Ext. P1 cheque was issued. To prove the transaction and issuance of the cheque, the complainant as well as a witness were examined. The defence version is that the accused had borrowed a sum of Rs. 25,000/- from the deceased brother of the complainant and at the time of the said transaction a blank cheque was issued which was misused by the complainant. 7. A negotiable....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee [ (2001) 6 SCC 16] and in Rangappa v. Sri Mohan [ (2010) 11 SCC 441] held that the cheque shall be presumed to be for consideration unless and until, the Court forms a belief that the consideration does not exist or considers the non-existence of consideration was so probable that a prudent man would under no circumstances of the case, act upon the plea that the consideration does not exist. In Uttam Ram v. Devinder Singh Hudan and Another [ 2019 (5) KHC 179], it was held that when a cheque is issued, it is presumed that the cheque was drawn for consideration and the holder of cheque received the same in discharge of an existing debt. It was further observed that: "A dishonour of cheque carries a statutory presumption of consideration. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....signed and handed over by the accused, which is towards some payment, would attract presumption under S. 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in the absence of any cogent evidence to show that the cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt. Recently in Kalamani Tex and Another v. P. Balasubramanian (2021 (2) KHC 517), the Supreme Court again held that once signature of an accused on cheque is established, then 'reverse onus' clause becomes operative, and in such a situation, obligation shifts upon the accused to discharge presumption imposed upon him. 9. It is true that when PW1 was examined the accused has disputed his signature in the cheque. It is also true that PW2 in cross examination stated that he did not see the accused....