Rangappa vs Sri Mohan on 7 May, 2010
17. For the foregoing reasons, I endorse the conviction
recorded by the learned trial Court rejecting the story of misusing
of the cheque by the complainant. Learned counsel for the
appellant has argued that learned trial Court improperly raised the
presumption under Section 118 (b) and 139 of the Act by
misplacing reliance on Rangappa's case (supra). In his
submissions, sufficient material has not been adduced to show
existence of any legally enforceable debt or liability. I find no
merit in the arguments to above effect. The complainant has
discharged burden of proof in respect of necessary ingredients on
the basis of which presumptions arise under Section 118 (b) and
139 of the Act to the effect that the cheques in question had been
issued for consideration and for discharge of debt or other liability
owed by the drawer in favour of the holder / payee. The defence
CA No. 58/15 Page 11/12
evidence led by the accused does not inspire confidence not even
when tested on the standard of preponderance of probabilities.
Thus the presumptions have not been rebutted.