Case Note & Summary
The appellant, M/s. Pakdhane Cement House, through its proprietor Anandrao Shamrao Pakdhane, filed a criminal appeal against the judgment and order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mangrulpir, District Washim, in Summary Criminal Case No.884 of 2003, dated 24th September 2000, whereby the respondent/accused Ramesh Sheshrao Deshmukh was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainant alleged that the accused had purchased cement worth Rs.90,750/- on credit on 2nd November 2001, paid Rs.14,750/- in cash, and issued a cheque for the balance of Rs.76,000/- drawn on Bank of Maharashtra, Mangrulpir Branch. The cheque was presented on 11.3.2003 but was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. A demand notice was issued on 12.4.2003 and received by the accused on 19.4.2003, but he did not comply. The trial court acquitted the accused. The High Court heard the appeal. The complainant had filed an affidavit and was cross-examined. Admittedly, the complainant did not file any document to prove the purchase of cement. In cross-examination, the complainant stated that the accused had never issued any cheque in his favour before the cheque in question. The High Court held that the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable and the complainant must prove the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability. The failure to produce supporting documents and the admission that no prior cheque was issued weakened the complainant's case. The court found no perversity in the trial court's judgment and dismissed the appeal, upholding the acquittal.
Headnote
A) Negotiable Instruments Act - Dishonour of Cheque - Section 138 - Legally Enforceable Debt - The complainant failed to produce any documentary evidence to show that the accused had purchased cement worth Rs.90,750/- on credit. In cross-examination, the complainant admitted that the accused had never issued any cheque in his favour before the cheque in question. Held that the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable and the complainant must prove the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability. The acquittal was upheld. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was proper when the complainant failed to prove the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mangrulpir, District Washim in Summary Criminal Case No.884 of 2003 is confirmed.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable
- complainant must prove existence of legally enforceable debt or liability
- mere issuance of cheque does not automatically prove debt
- absence of supporting documents weakens complainant's case
