TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1874
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....running a retail business in the name and style of M/S Sai Agro Chemicals, Dhabas, Tehsil Chopal, District Shimla, H.P. He procured the seeds, pesticides, fungicides and other horticultural items from the complainant for Rs. 9,68,633.99. He issued two cheques- one of Rs. 1,00,000/- and another cheque of Rs. 6,68,600/- drawn on UCO Bank, Chopal, District Shimla, H.P., to discharge his liability. The complainant presented the cheques to his banker and they were dishonoured with an endorsement "insufficient funds'. The complainant issued a demand notice to the accused asking him to pay the amount. Notice was served upon the accused, but he failed to pay the amount despite receipt of the notice. Hence, the complaint. 3. The learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused. When the accused appeared, notice of accusation was put to him for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The complainant examined himself (CW-1) to prove his case. 5. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., stated that he had issued a blank cheque to the complainant as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... bar and have gone through the records carefully. 10. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa, (2019) 5 SCC 418: (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 571: 2019 SCC OnLine SC 491 that the admission of signatures raises the presumption under Sections 118 (a) and 139 of the NI Act that the cheque was issued for consideration in the discharge of the legal liability but the accused can rebut the presumption by leading the evidence or cross-examining the complainant and his witnesses to show that his version is not reliable. It was observed at page 432: "25. We having noticed the ratio laid down by this Court in the above cases on Sections 118(a) and 139, we now summarise the principles enumerated by this Court in the following manner: 25.1. Once the execution of the cheque is admitted, Section 139 of the Act mandates a presumption that the cheque was for the discharge of any debt or other liability. 25.2. The presumption under Section 139 is a rebuttable presumption, and the onus is on the accused to raise the probable defence. The standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is that of preponderance of probabilities. 25.3. To....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is open for the accused to rely on evidence led by him, or the accused can also rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise a probable defence. Inference or preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the materials brought on record by the parties but also by reference to the circumstances upon which they rely." 13. The complainant admitted in his cross-examination that cheques were issued as security in the year 2017, which is contrary to his statement in examination-in-chief that the cheques were issued in the year 2020. It was laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dattatraya v. Sharanappa, (2024) 8 SCC 573, that where the accused had made contradictory statement regarding the date of handing over of the cheque, his statement could not be relied upon and this would shift the burden upon the complainant to prove the legal liability. It was observed: - "30. Admittedly, the appellant was able to establish that the signature on the cheque in question was of the respondent and in regard to the decision of this Court in Bir Singh [Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar, (2019) 4 SCC 197: (2019) 2 SCC (Civ) 309: (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 40], a presumptio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... party who relies upon such entries to support his claim against another. In Hira Lal v. Ram Rakha [Hira Lal v. Ram Rakha, AIR 1953 Pepsu 113] the High Court, while negativing a contention that it having been proved that the books of account were regularly kept in the ordinary course of business and that, therefore, all entries therein should be considered to be relevant and to have been proved, said that the rule as laid down in Section 34 of the Act that entries in the books of account regularly kept in the course of business are relevant whenever they refer to a matter in which the Court has to enquire was subject to the salient proviso that such entries shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability. It is not, therefore, enough merely to prove that the books have been regularly kept in the course of business and the entries therein are correct. It is further incumbent upon the person relying upon those entries to prove that they were in accordance with facts." 15. Therefore, the version of the complainant that accused had purchased the articles from him and he issued cheques to return the amount to the complainant was not proved on record. 16.....