2010 (5) TMI 391 - SUPREME COURT

Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in account.

Whether the ingredients of the offence enumerated in section 138 of the Act have been met and if so, whether the accused was able to rebut the statutory presumption contemplated by section 139 of the Act

Held that:- Appeal dismissed. As per the record of the case, there was a slight discrepancy in the complainant’s version, insofar as it was not clear whether the accused had asked for a hand loan to meet the construction-related expenses or whether the complainant had incurred the said expenditure over a period of time. Either way, the complaint discloses the prima facie existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability since the complainant has maintained that his money was used for the construction-expenses. Since the accused did admit that the signature on the cheque was his, the statutory presumption comes into play and the same has not been rebutted even with regard to the materials submitted by the complainant.

No reason to interfere with the final order of the High Court which recorded a finding of conviction against the appellant.