Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Harilal Khurdhan Ram, an LIC agent, filed a criminal application seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 24th November 2015 passed by the trial court in CC No. 3001092/SS/2015, which acquitted the respondent no.1, Murlidhar Gamaprasad, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The applicant's case was that the respondent no.1 had issued a cheque for Rs.2,40,000 on 20th February 2010 (cheque no. 169764) towards a life insurance policy. However, the policy could not be drawn because the respondent no.1 failed to submit salary documents. The cheque was presented and dishonoured. The trial court acquitted the accused, holding that the complainant failed to prove that the cheque was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability. The High Court, after hearing the parties, noted that the cheque was a cancelled cheque and was issued for a policy that never materialized. The court observed that the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable, and the accused had successfully rebutted it by showing that no policy was drawn. The complainant did not prove any existing debt or liability. The court found that the trial court's findings were not perverse and dismissed the application for leave to appeal, upholding the acquittal.
Headnote
A) Negotiable Instruments Act - Dishonour of Cheque - Section 138 - Legally Enforceable Debt - The complainant, an LIC agent, alleged that the accused issued a cheque for Rs.2,40,000 towards a life insurance policy, but the policy was never drawn due to non-submission of documents. The court held that the cheque was issued for a policy that never materialized, and the complainant failed to prove any existing debt or liability. The acquittal was upheld as the complainant did not discharge the initial burden under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. (Paras 3-6) B) Negotiable Instruments Act - Presumption under Section 139 - Rebuttable Presumption - The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 that the cheque was issued for a debt or liability is rebuttable. In this case, the accused successfully rebutted the presumption by showing that the cheque was a cancelled cheque and no policy was drawn. The complainant failed to prove the existence of a legally enforceable debt. (Paras 5-6) C) Criminal Procedure Code - Appeal against Acquittal - Section 378 - Leave to Appeal - The court, while considering an application for leave to appeal against acquittal, must be satisfied that the trial court's findings are perverse or unreasonable. Here, the trial court's acquittal was based on proper appreciation of evidence and was not perverse, hence leave to appeal was refused. (Paras 1-2, 7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was justified when the complainant failed to prove that the cheque was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability.
Final Decision
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. The acquittal of the respondent no.1 is upheld.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable
- burden on complainant to prove existence of legally enforceable debt or liability
- acquittal justified when complainant fails to discharge initial burden
