Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2022 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (11) TMI 488 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - insufficient funds - admissibility of signatures on the cheque - rebuttal of statutory presumptions - section 139 of NI Act - HELD THAT:- Trite it is that once the signatures on the cheque leaf are admitted, presumption under Section 139 of the Act does pitch in. However, the said presumption is rebuttable. At the same time in order to rebut the said presumption, accused is required to raise probable defence. Though in order to substantiate the same, he can either lead evidence in defence or can well rely upon the evidence adduced by the complainant - Thus in order to rebut the statutory presumption accused is required to raise a defence though only probable. When analysed in the light of the settled proposition of law, this Court is of the considered opinion that the accused failed to raise any defence during trial and thus it cannot be held that the presumption enumerated under Section 139 of the Act was validly rebutted by the accused. Appellate Court pittedly erred in relying upon KRISHNA NANARDHAN BHAT VERSUS DATTATRAYA G. HEGDE [2008 (1) TMI 827 - SUPREME COURT] to hold that in absence of resources to advance loan, the liability qua the cheque in question can be held to be not illegally enforceable. Complainant was explicit in proving source of fund i.e. the compensation received on account of loan acquisition. Admittedly, such compensation is not amenable to the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 and thus there was no occassion for the complainant to prove said source by producing his income tax returns Apart from that the Appellate Court has failed to meet with the reasoning adopted by the trial Court while convicting the respondent-accused and has set aside the judgment of conviction without upsetting the findings recorded by the trial Court. No cogent reasoning has been afforded by the Appellate Court for acquitting the respondent-accused. Consequently, the impugned judgment dated 22.08.2016 cannot be sustained and is, thus, set aside - The impugned order passed by the Lower Appellate Court acquitting the respondent is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the the Appellate Court to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law, after hearing both the parties. Petition allowed.
|