TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1157
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the verdict under challenge and the records of the trial court. 3. Parties in this appeal shall be referred as 'complainant' and 'accused' hereafter. 4. In this matter, on dishonour of cheque for Rs.50,000/-, drawn on Kannambra Co-operative Service Bank Ltd., dated 18.06.2008, alleged to be issued by the accused to the complainant in discharge of a legal liability, the complainant approached the trial court alleging that the accused committed offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'NI Act' for short). 5. The trial court took cognizanc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ence of the complainant, who was examined as PW1, regarding the transaction and execution of Ext.P1 cheque was not shaken during cross-examination and therefore, the trial court went wrong in believing the case advanced by the accused. 8. Adverting to the matter in issue, the points arise for consideration are : 1. Whether the trial court wrongly acquitted the accused on the finding that he did not commit the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act? 2. Whether the trial court verdict would require interference? 3. Order to be passed? 9. In this matter, according to the complainant and as deposed by him as PW1, the accused borrowed Rs.50,000/- from the complainant as ready cash on 12.04.2008 and Ext.P1 cheque dated 18.0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2, stating that 'funds insufficient' and not for the reason 'signature differs'. 11. Normally, when the bank officials did not notice any difference in the signature with that of specimen signature of the payer, when there was no sufficient money in the account of the payer to honour the cheque, the bank would return the cheque for the said reason. At the same time, where the bank officials notice difference in the signature of the payer, they would record the same as a reason or as an additional reason for dishonouring the cheque. Here, issuance of cheque is admitted for a different transaction. When such a cheque was dishonoured by the bank without mentioning anything regarding difference in signature, it has to be inferred that the cheq....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r. Paragraph Nos. 36 to 40 and 42 are extracted as under: "36. The proposition of law which emerges from the judgments referred to above is that the onus to rebut the presumption under Section 139 that the cheque has been issued in discharge of a debt or liability is on the accused and the fact that the cheque might be post dated does not absolve the drawer of a cheque of the penal consequences of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 37. A meaningful reading of the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act including, in particular, Sections 20, 87 and 139, makes it amply clear that a person who signs a cheque and makes it over to the payee remains liable unless he adduces evidence to rebut the presumption that the cheque h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce of any finding that the cheque in question was not signed by the respondent-accused or not voluntarily made over to the payee and in the absence of any evidence with regard to the circumstances in which a blank signed cheque had been given to the appellant- complainant, it may reasonably be presumed that the cheque was filled in by the appellant complainant being the payee in the presence of the respondent-accused being the drawer, at his request and/or with his acquiescence. The subsequent filling in of an unfilled signed cheque is not an alteration. There was no change in the amount of the cheque, its date or the name of the payee. The High Court ought not to have acquitted the respondent-accused of the charge under Section 138 of the....