Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

18.1  The Apex Court in case of  C. Antony Versus   K.G.   Raghavan   Nair   reported  in   (2003)   1  SCC  1,  has  held   that   even   if  the  other  view   is  possible,  from  the very set of evidence, to arrive at, that also is  not the ground to interfere by the Appellate Court.

  ::  Legally   enforceable   debt,   whether   proved  (Issue No.2)::

19.    So   far   as   the   question   of   proving   legally  enforceable debt by the complainant is concerned, the  law has been laid down by the three Judges Bench of  the   Hon'ble   Apex   Court   in   case   of  Rangappa   Versus   Sri Mohan, reported in (2010) 11 SCC 441, wherein it  is held that presumption mandated by Section 139 of  the Act include the existence of legally enforceable  debt   or   liability   and   this   being   a   rebuttal  presumption,   of   course,   such   presumption   can   be  R/CR.A/1140/2017 JUDGMENT rebutted by the accused by raising the defence and on  contesting liability. 

10. It has been contended on behalf of the   appellant­accused   that   the   presumption   mandated by Section 139 of the Act does not   extend   to   the   existence   of   a   legally   enforceable debt or liability and that the   same   stood   rebutted   in   this   case,   keeping   in   mind   the   discrepancies   in   the   complainant's version. It was reasoned that   it   is   open   to   the   accused   to   rely   on   the   R/CR.A/1140/2017 JUDGMENT materials   produced   by   the   complainant   for   disproving   the   existence   of   a   legally   enforceable debt or liability. It has been   contended   that   since   the   complainant   did  not   conclusively   show   whether   a   debt   was   owed to him in respect of a hand loan or in   relation to expenditure incurred during the   construction   of   the   accused's   house,   the  existence of a legally enforceable debt or   liability   had   not   been   shown,   thereby   creating   a   probable   defence   for   the   accused.   Counsel   appearing   for   the   appellant­ accused has relied on a decision   given by a division bench of this Court in   Krishna   Janardhan   Bhat   v.   Dattatraya   G.   Hegde,   (2008)   4   SCC   54,   the   operative   observations   from   which   are   reproduced   below   (S.B.   Sinha,   J.   at   Paras.   29­32,   34   and 45):

"29.  Section   138  of   the   Act   has   three   ingredients viz.: 

(i)   that   there   is   a   legally   enforceable   debt 

(ii)   that   the   cheque   was   drawn   from   the   account   of   bank   for   discharge   in   whole   or   in   part   of   any   debt   or   other   liability   which   presupposes   a   legally   enforceable   debt; and 

(iii)   that   the   cheque   so   issued   had   been   returned due to insufficiency of funds. 

45.  It can be also concluded reiteratively that  the complainant has succeeded before the trial Court  in   proving   the   existence   of   a   legally   enforceable  debt   or   liability.   Even   if   the   withdrawal   of   the  amounts from various relatives has not come directly  from the bank accounts, the complainant succeeded in  proving the same through the oral evidence and also  by   providing   accurate   details   of   various   relatives  from whom, he had collected the amount to be handed  over to the respondent­accused. As a result of which,  the respondent No.2 had agreed to make the payment to  the tune of Rs.31 lakh and odd by giving a portion of  his   land   of  the  property   to  the   complainant  in   the  event of his non­fulfillment of his promise of making  the appellant a partner in the business for which the  complainant had trusted him and handed over the huge  sum. It is a matter of record that on the failure of  the respondent­accused to even honour the obligation  by getting the land cleared from the Bank, where, it  R/CR.A/1140/2017 JUDGMENT was   mortgaged,   he  had   chosen   to  issue  a  cheque   for  Rs.36   lakh.   This   was   done   in   the   month   of  October/November, when the entire transaction failed  and   the   same   when   was   presented   to   the   Bank,   it  resulted   into   dishonor   of   the   cheque.   The   overall  circumstances,   which  thus  emerged   on   record,   and  which the complainant succeeded in proving from the  oral   as   well   as   documentary   evidence   lead   to   the  conclusion   of   existing   of   legally   enforceable   debt.  Number   of   complainants   have   been   filed   against   the  respondent­accused   and   which   also   resulted   into  his  conviction in some of the matters.   Although, these  are   additional   factors   and   grounds   they   also   are  substantiating the say of the complainant. This Court  holds firmly that the trial Court committed no error  in   believing   that   the   complainant   succeeded   in  discharging   the   burden   that   there   exists   a   legally  enforceable   debt   or   liability,   and   thereafter,   the  legal   presumption   was   required   to   be   dislodged   or  rebutted   by   the   accused­respondent,   which   he  miserably   failed   to   do   with   preponderance   of  probabilities,   and   therefore,   findings   and   the  conclusions arrived at by the Sessions Court deserve  to be quashed and set aside. The judgment and order  of   the   appellate   Court,  as   can   be   seen   from  appreciation of evidence that the view taken by the  Appellate   Court   is   unsustainable   being   contrary   to  the well settled cannon of law on the subject as also  established by various decisions of the Apex Court.