Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2.4 The trial court framed following two questions:-

1. Whether the complainant proves beyond all reasonable doubts that, the accused had issued a cheque bearing No.839374 dated 27-02-2012 for Rs.6,00,000/- of Pragathi Gramin Bank, Nijalingappa Colony Branch, Raichur in favour of complainant, towards discharge of legally enforceable debt or liability and the same was dishonored for ‘ Funds Insufficient’ and even after deemed legal notice the accused has not paid the debt covered under the above said cheque and thereby committed an offence punishable Under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act?
2. What Order?
2.5 The trial court after considering the evidence and material on record held that if the accused is able to raise a probable defense which creates doubts about the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability, the prosecution can fail. By judgment dated 20.02.2015, the accused was acquitted for the offence under Section
138. Complainant aggrieved by said judgment filed a Criminal Appeal under Section 378(4) of Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court set aside the judgment of the trial court and convicted the accused for the offence under Section
19. After referring to various other judgments of this Court, this Court in that case held that the presumption mandated by Section 139 of the Act does indeed include the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability, which, of course, is in the nature of a rebuttable presumption. In paragraph No.26, following was laid down:-
“26. In 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 observations in Krishna Janardhan Bhat, (2008) 4 SCC 54 may not be correct. However, this does not in any way cast doubt on the correctness of the decision in that case since it was based on the specific facts and circumstances therein. As noted in the citations, this is of course in the nature of a rebuttable 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.”
22. Another judgment which needs to be looked into is Rangappa v. Sri Mohan (2010) 11 SCC 441. A three-Judge Bench of this Court had occasion to examine the presumption under Section 139 of the 1881 Act. This Court in the aforesaid case has held that in the event the accused is able to raise a probable defence which creates doubt with regard to the existence of a debt or liability, the presumption may fail. Following was laid down in paras 26 and 27: (SCC pp. 453-54) “26. In 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 observations in Krishna Janardhan Bhat, may not be correct.