2024 (12) TMI 1446

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....himself as PW1 and proved Exts.P1 to P6. DWs 1 to 4 were examined and Exts.D1 to D6 were marked on the side of the defence. 4. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the complainant. 5. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court is illegal and unsustainable in law. The learned Senior Counsel, relying on Rangappa v. Mohan [(2010) 11 SCC 441 : 2010 (2) KLT 682 (SC)] and Vasanthakumar v. Vijayakumari [(2015) 8 SCC 378 : (2) KLT SN 99 (C.No.117) SC], submitted that as the complainant established execution of Ext.P1 cheque, the mandatory presumption as provided under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been drawn in his favour. 6. The case of the complainant is as follows : - The complainant paid Rs.8,00,000/- to the accused as advance for purchasing 50 cents of property belonging to him. Two agreements were executed in this connection between the complainant's wife and the accused. Contrary to the agreements, the accused sold the property to a third party. Later, mediators intervened and the accused agreed to repay the amount. In discharge of the liability, he issued Ext.P1 cheque for Rs.8,00,000/- draw....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....consideration. The holder of the cheque, in due course, is only required to prove that the cheque was issued by the accused and that when the same was presented, it was not honoured. Since there is a statutory presumption of consideration, the burden is on the accused to rebut the presumption that the cheque was issued not for any debt or other liability (Vide: Uttam Ram v. Devinder Singh Hudan and Another [2019 (5) KHC 179 : (2019) 10 SCC 287]. 11. In Vasanthakumar (supra) the Supreme Court held that since once the cheque as well as the signature are accepted by the accused, the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act would operate and the burden is on the accused to disprove the cheque or the existence of any legally recoverable debt or liability. In Rangappa (Supra) the Apex Court held that presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act does include the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability. Therefore, I am of the view that the complainant has established the execution of Ext.P1 cheque by the accused. 12. Now, the crucial question that arises for consideration is whether the accused has succeeded in rebutting the presumption drawn in favour of the complainant....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eme Court, while considering the nature and scope of onus of proof which the accused was required to discharge in a criminal case, held that the onus on an accused person might well be compared to the onus on a party in civil proceedings, and just as in civil proceedings the court trying an issue makes its decision by adopting the test of probabilities. In V. D. Jhingan v. State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 1966 SC 1762), the Supreme Court held that it is well established that where the burden of an issue lies upon the accused, he is not required to discharge that burden by leading evidence to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt. In Rajaram S/o.Sriramulu Naidu (Since Deceased) through L.Rs. v. Maruthachalam (Since Deceased) through L.Rs. [2023 SCC OnLine SC 48 : (2023 LiveLaw (SC) 46), the Supreme Court held that the standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is that of preponderance of probabilities, and it is open for the accused to rely on the evidence led by him or the accused can also rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise a probable defence. 15. The principle that emerges from the above discussion is that the rebuttal does not have to be conc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in favour of her. He further stated that on 19.6.2011, he had returned Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant's wife. The balance amount due to the wife of the complainant could not be repaid and the accused requested extended period for repayment till 30.12.2011. By that time, the complainant and his wife wanted to execute a new agreement stating that he received Rs.4,00,000/- from the wife of the complainant. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that when the accused takes the plea that he had discharged the liability towards the wife of the complainant, he has to prove it by way of cogent evidence. 18. The case of the accused is that he never had any financial transactions with the complainant. He only admitted a transaction between himself and the wife of the complainant. His further case is that in the financial dispute, a mediator by name A. K. Ramakrishnan intervened and the parties entered into an agreement in which the accused agreed to pay Rs.1,90,000/-. He had sought time till the landed property was disposed of. In the mediation he was required to give a blank cheque as an assurance for repayment of the amount of Rs.1,90,000/-. Sri.A.K.Ramakrishnan, who gave ev....