Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Vandana Pandey, filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the respondent, Abhilasha Pande, alleging that the respondent had issued a cheque for Rs. 1,63,000 towards repayment of a hand loan taken for tuition fees and other expenses. The cheque was dishonoured twice due to insufficient funds. Despite a demand notice, the respondent failed to pay. The trial court acquitted the respondent, holding that the appellant failed to prove the existence of a legally enforceable debt. The appellant appealed against the acquittal. The High Court observed that the appellant had proved the issuance of the cheque and the respondent's signature, thereby raising the presumption under Section 139 of the Act that the cheque was issued for a legally enforceable debt. The respondent did not lead any evidence and failed to rebut the presumption through cross-examination. The trial court's finding that the appellant did not prove the debt was perverse, as it ignored the presumption. The High Court allowed the appeal, convicted the respondent under Section 138, and sentenced her to pay the cheque amount as compensation, with default simple imprisonment.
Headnote
A) Negotiable Instruments Act - Dishonour of Cheque - Section 138 and 139 - Presumption of legally enforceable debt - The complainant proved issuance of cheque and signature, raising presumption under Section 139. The accused failed to rebut the presumption by leading evidence or through cross-examination. The trial court's acquittal was set aside as perverse. (Paras 6-10) B) Criminal Procedure Code - Appeal against acquittal - Section 378 - Scope of interference - The appellate court can interfere if the trial court's findings are perverse or based on no evidence. Here, the trial court ignored the presumption and the accused's failure to rebut, making the acquittal unsustainable. (Paras 6-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in acquitting the accused despite the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 not being rebutted, and whether the appeal against acquittal should be allowed.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 30-03-2016 is set aside. The respondent is convicted for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The respondent is sentenced to pay compensation of Rs. 1,63,000 to the appellant within two months, failing which she shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act
- 1881
- Rebuttal of presumption
- Burden of proof in cheque dishonour cases
- Appeal against acquittal under Section 378 CrPC
