Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Nupur Sales Corporation, filed a criminal appeal against the judgment and order dated 19.06.2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur, in Summary Criminal Case No.12999 of 2013, whereby the respondent, Mayur Jethwa, was acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The appellant's case was that it was a super stockist of pharmaceutical and cosmetic items, and the respondent used to purchase items from it. The appellant claimed that the respondent issued a cheque of Rs.49,444/- dated 16.01.2013 in favour of the appellant towards purchase of items. When the cheque was deposited, it was dishonoured. The appellant issued a notice to the respondent, but the respondent failed to respond, leading to the complaint. To support its case, the appellant placed on record bills dated 05.09.2011, 14.09.2011, and 09.05.2011 (Exhs. 19, 20, and 21) totaling Rs.49,444/-. The trial court acquitted the respondent on the ground that the appellant failed to prove that the cheque was issued towards a legally enforceable debt or liability. The appellant challenged this acquittal. The High Court noted that the bills were of the year 2011, while the cheque was dated 16.01.2013, and no evidence was produced to show that the debt was alive on the date of the cheque. The appellant did not produce any ledger account or income tax returns to establish the debt. The court held that the presumption under Section 139 of the Act is rebuttable, and the respondent had rebutted it by pointing out the discrepancies. The court found no perversity in the trial court's findings and dismissed the appeal, upholding the acquittal.
Headnote
A) Negotiable Instruments Act - Dishonour of Cheque - Section 138 - Legally Enforceable Debt - The appellant/complainant failed to prove that the cheque was issued towards a legally enforceable debt or liability, as the bills produced were of the year 2011 while the cheque was dated 2013, and no ledger account or income tax returns were produced to show the debt was alive - Held that the trial court's acquittal was justified (Paras 1-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in acquitting the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on the ground that 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 trial court is confirmed.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable
- burden on complainant to prove existence of debt or liability
- failure to produce relevant documents like ledger accounts or income tax returns weakens case
- acquittal justified when evidence insufficient
