TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 840
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e known to each other and had financial dealings. In discharge of his liability the accused issued cheque No. 264753 dated 20.08.2015 for Rs. 49,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Maniyar Branch. The cheque when presented was dishonoured on 17.09.2015 on account of insufficient funds. Thereafter statutory notice dated 19.09.2015 was sent to the accused, but despite service of notice the amount was not paid within the statutory period and consequently complaint under Section 138 N.I. Act was filed. The trial court after recording evidence convicted the accused under Section 138 N.I. Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and six months along with fine of Rs. 60,00,000/-, out of which Rs. 49,00,000/- was directed to be paid as compensation. The conviction and sentence has also been affirmed vide order dated 19.09.2019 in appeal filed by the revisionist, hence the present criminal revision. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the impugned judgments and orders passed by the courts below are illegal, arbitrary and against the settled principles of law and facts on record. It is further submitted that the revisionist has been falsely implic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e party no.2 have countered the contentions made in favour of the Revisionist and submitted that the judgments passed by the courts below are perfectly justified, reasoned and based upon proper appreciation of evidence and do not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. It is further submitted that the issuance of cheque by the accused and his signature over the cheque were never specifically denied during trial and once the cheque was brought on record, the statutory presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act automatically came into operation in favour of the complainant. It is further submitted that the accused failed to rebut the said presumption by leading any cogent or reliable evidence and mere denial of liability is not sufficient to discharge the burden placed upon the accused under law. 10. It is also submitted that the dishonour of cheque is duly proved by the bank return memo and the statutory notice was also duly proved in accordance with law. It is argued that merely because the bank official was not examined, the documentary evidence does not become inadmissible when the same remained unrebutted and was duly exhibi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt under Sections 118 and 139 of the N. I. Act. 17. In the present case, except taking a bald plea that the cheque was not issued, the accused did not produce any substantive evidence to support his claim. Mere denial without supporting evidence cannot dislodge the prosecution case. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the cheque in question was duly proved to have been issued by the accused. 18. So far as the issue whether the cheque was issued in discharge of legally enforceable liability, the complainant has alleged a liability of Rs. 49,00,000/- arising from business assistance provided to the revisionist, his family, and his manager (Munib). The revisionist challenged the complainant's financial capacity. However, the trial court record reveals that the complainant is a "D" grade contractor with a working limit of Rs. 30-40 lakhs and an established potato trade yielding an annual profit of Rs. 3-4 lakhs. Furthermore, the revisionist admitted to past financial dealings of Rs. 20,00,000/- with the complainant. Crucially, the revisionist failed to produce his manager, Munib, to deny the receipt of funds alleged by the complainant. Once the issuance of cheque is est....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on the accused to bring on record such material which may strengthen his defence on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. Further, as per Section 146 of the N.I. Act, the bank's slip or memo having official mark denoting 'dishonour' carries a statutory presumption of correctness unless disproved, and no evidence was led by the accused to rebut the same. 23. So far as the argument of learned counsel for the revisionist that no bank official was called to prove the dishonor, this Court finds this argument devoid of merit in light of Section 146 of the N.I. Act. The production of the bank return memo (Exhibit 8k) with an official mark carries a statutory presumption of the fact of dishonor. The revisionist did not produce any evidence from his own bank to show the memo was fabricated or that funds were actually available. Relying on Kumar Exports (Supra) and M.S. Narayana Menon (Supra), the revisionist claimed a "probable defence" was raised. However, a "probable defence" requires more than mere denial; it requires the accused to make the complainant's version highly improbable. The failure of the revisionist to explain the custody of the cheque or produce defen....