Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to a criminal revision application filed by the original complainant, Kalidas Vishwanath Gore, against the acquittal of the accused, Rajaram Kisanrao Potdar, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The complainant alleged that on 05.07.2001, the accused took a hand loan of Rs.10,000/- and issued a postdated cheque drawn on District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Branch Lohara, District Osmanabad. The cheque was presented on 31.12.2001 but returned unpaid due to insufficient funds. A statutory notice was issued, and the accused replied denying the debt. The trial court convicted the accused, but the appellate court acquitted him. The complainant then filed this revision. The key legal issue was whether the acquittal was perverse. The court noted that the accused did not deny the issuance of the cheque but disputed the existence of a legally enforceable debt. The accused claimed the cheque was given as security for a different transaction. The court observed that the complainant failed to prove his financial capacity to lend Rs.10,000/-. The accused successfully rebutted the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act by showing that the complainant's income was meager and he had no source to advance such a loan. The court held that the appellate court's findings were based on evidence and not perverse. The revision was dismissed, upholding the acquittal.
Headnote
A) Negotiable Instruments Act - Dishonour of Cheque - Section 138 - Legally Enforceable Debt - The complainant alleged a hand loan of Rs.10,000/- given to the accused on 05.07.2001, but failed to prove the financial capacity to advance such loan. The accused denied the loan and claimed the cheque was given as security for a different transaction. The court held that the presumption under Section 139 is rebuttable and the accused successfully rebutted it by showing the complainant's lack of financial capacity. The acquittal was upheld. (Paras 1-10) B) Negotiable Instruments Act - Rebuttal of Presumption - Section 139 - Standard of Proof - The accused need not prove his defence beyond reasonable doubt; preponderance of probabilities is sufficient. The accused's defence that the cheque was not for a legally enforceable debt was plausible and supported by evidence. (Paras 5-10) C) Criminal Procedure Code - Revision - Scope - Section 397 - Interference with Acquittal - The revisional court cannot re-appreciate evidence unless the findings are perverse or illegal. The trial court and appellate court's concurrent findings of fact were based on evidence and not perverse. Hence, no interference was warranted. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was perverse and warranted interference in revision.
Final Decision
The revision application is dismissed. The acquittal of the accused is upheld.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 139 N.I. Act is rebuttable
- Burden of proof shifts to accused to rebut presumption
- Standard of proof for rebuttal is preponderance of probabilities
- Failure to prove legally enforceable debt leads to acquittal
