Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3.2. A legal notice was issued on 11.04.2014 which was within the prescribed period of limitation. Upon the service of notice, a reply through the advocate has been given by the respondent. He agreed of having accepted this amount.

However, the same has not been paid. Therefore, the complaint came to be filed under Section 138 of the N.I.Act, and the same was registered as Criminal Case No.4023 of 2014.

3.3. The complainant and witnesses were examined and various documents had been exhibited. Eventually, the trial Court acquitted the respondent on the ground that the cheque was not given for a legally enforceable debt. Not only the complainant had made a transaction through the bank, he had also shown this amount in the Income Tax return and yet, the Court had not convicted the accused respondent for the non-payment. The liability also had been accepted by the respondent.

3.4. According to the appellant, liability for the remaining amount of debt would continue of the respondent and that has also not been considered by the Trial Court. The presumption, which has been made available under Section 139 of the R/CR.A/1488/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/01/2022 N.I.Act, has not been rebutted by the respondent accused.

Therefore also, presumption is available that there is a default in paying the bank the legally enforceable debt.

3.5. Affidavit-in-reply is filed by the respondent denying all allegations, averments and contentions raised in the affidavit.

15. In Rangappa v. Sri Mohan : (2010) 11 SCC 441, this Court has reiterated and summarised the principles relating to presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act and rebuttal thereof in the following:-

"26. In the light of these extracts, we are in agreement with the respondent claimant that the presumption mandated by Section 139 of the Act does indeed include the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability. To that extent, the impugned R/CR.A/1488/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/01/2022 observations in Krishna Janardhan Bhat may not be correct. However, this does not in any way cast doubt on the correctness of the decision in that case since it is based on the specific facts and circumstances therein. As noted in the citations, this is of course in the nature of a rebuttal presumption and it is open to the accused to raise a defence wherein the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability can be contested. However, there can be no doubt that there is an initial presumption which favours the complainant.

(c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice.

Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, "debt or other liability" means a legally enforceable debt or other liability."

16. It is well settled that the proceedings under Section 138 of the Act are quasicriminal in nature, and the principles which apply to acquittal in other R/CR.A/1488/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/01/2022 criminal cases are not applicable in the cases instituted under the Act.