Cheque bounce case -- Rebuttal of presumption -- No document to show the loan transaction -- No particulars at which place and in whose presence the amount was given; whether it was given in cash or through cheque -- Nothing on record as to when the demand was raised; whether any security document was obtained -- Father of the accused filed a written complaint against the complainant to take action for breaking the glass of the car etc. -- When the relations between complainant and accused families were strained and the complaint was filed against the complainant and that was pending, it is improbable that the complainant will give a loan of Rs.3,63,000/- to the accused without even getting any receipt or security document -- Presumption u/s 139 of the NI Act can be rebutted by raising probable defence and the accused had raised a probable defence and the presumption was rebutted.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 03.08.2018

Cheque bounce case -- Limitation -- Admittedly loan was taken in the year 1990, the same could not be claimed by bringing an action through cheque dated 30.08.1997 for recovery of the amount of Rs.25,000/- -- Hence, action in question was clearly barred by law of limitation -- Consequently, the liability under cheque could not be said to be a legally enforceable liability, and, therefore the complaint was not maintainable.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 28.09.2017

Cheque bounce case -- Money lending license – Onus of proof -- Appeal against acquittal – From the receipt it is clear that cheque in question was issued for recovery of the moneys advanced to him by way of cash from time to time with interest @ 2% per month -- Burden of proof to show that the complainant was a money lender under licence to do the business of money lending was upon the complainant but no document was produced -- Section 138 of the Act contemplates legally enforceable liability -- In the wake of the above finding and reasons discussed above, the appellant could not have enforced his claim into the cheque in question which was issued in illegal money lending transaction -- Appeal against acquittal is therefore dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 25.09.2017

Cheque bounce case -- Rebuttal of presumption -- Giving no particulars of the loan amount, as to when it was advanced nor there being any document to support the loan transaction, corroborates the version that the accused has not borrowed the amount – Furthermore, the complainant in the evidence has stated that he himself borrowed the amount on interest @ 3 to 5% -- Defence of the accused is that he has given this cheque to son in 2008 -- Before issuing legal notice to the present accused, the complainant had issued legal notice to son of the accused – Presumption u/s 139 of the Act has been duly rebutted.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 19.09.2017

Cheque bounce case -- Admission of signature on cheque – Merely on the basis of the admission of signatures by the accused on the cheque in question, he cannot be held guilty for its dishonour without any proof of a legally enforceable liability.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.11.2016

Cheque bounce case -- Admission of signature on cheque – Merely on the basis of the admission of signatures by the accused on the cheque in question, he cannot be held guilty for its dishonour without any proof of a legally enforceable liability.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.11.2016

Cheque bounce case -- Debt of Chit fund business – Maintainability of complaint u/s 138 of NI Act -- Applicant/ complainant in her statement has deposed that she is not aware of the fact that chit fund business has been banned in Haryana and admits that she has been running the chit fund business without any license – Held, the liability or debt will not come under the ambit of Section 138 of the Act – Acquittal order of Trial Court and dismissal of appeal on the ground of maintainability, upheld.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.09.2015

Cheque bounce case -- Time barred debt -- Nothing on record to show that the applicant/ complainant had advanced the amount in question to the respondent /accused from his bank account or from any other source -- Neither any receipt nor any authenticated document has been placed on record to substantiate his claim -- It is highly improbable that he advanced an amount of Rs.3,86,000/- to the respondent without any receipt or pronote -- Moreover, the date, name and amount filled on the cheque does not tally with the specimen writing of the respondent -- Loan in the year 2000, however, the cheque in question pertains to the year 2008, therefore, the allegations of the applicant appears to be vague and barred by time -- Finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to the material on record -- Even if a second view on appreciation of evidence is possible, the Court will not interfere in the acquittal of the accused – Leave to appeal declined.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 24.08.2015

Cheque bounce case -- Presumption -- Accused has categorically admitted issuance of cheque to complainant, which on presentation stood dishonoured -- There is a presumption that cheque was issued in discharging of his legal liability.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 07.05.2015

Cheque bounce case – Leave to appeal -- In the complaint it is stated that the accused was on business terms with the complainant and used to borrow money from her from time to time, whereas during cross-examination she has deposed that she was not running any business and has no knowledge regarding the business of the accused – Complainant has failed to produce any accounts books or similar documents – Complainant has failed to establish any monetary liability of the accused towards her -- It is for the complainant to produce the statement of accounts, wherein transactions can be established between the complainant and the accused -- Interference in an appeal against acquittal would be called for only if the judgment under appeal is perverse or is based on misreading of evidence -- Complainant has failed to point out any misreading of evidence by the trial Court – Prayer for special leave to appeal is declined.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.04.2015

Cheque bounce case -- Rebuttal of presumption -- Cheques issued against alleged loss/damages -- Complainant failed to prove that he suffered any loss on account of alleged late supply of the machinery and was legally entitled to claim any damages from accused -- Even late supply of the machinery is not proved -- Therefore, accused has been successful in rebutting the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act to prove that there was 'no legally enforceable debt', for which the cheques are stated to have been issued -- Disputed claim of damages, which are not determined by any authority cannot be called debt or legally recoverable debt – No offence u/s 138 of the Act – Accused acquitted.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 17.03.2015

Cheque bounce case -- Burdon of proof -- Provisions of the N.I.Act lay down that initially, the complainant has to prove the existence of debt and other liabilities and thereafter the burden shifts upon the accused to prove that the cheque was not issued towards discharge of a lawful debt but was issued by way of security or any other reason on account of some business transaction or was obtained unlawfully.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 03.03.2015

Cheque bounce case -- Rebuttal of presumption -- No averment in the complaint to show when the loan was given by the complainant to the accused, in whose presence the loan amount was given and at which place – No evidence on the record that what amount has been given as loan and whether any interest etc. was to be paid or not -- No document on the record to show the liability and capacity of the complainant to lend such a huge amount -- No evidence on record that such a huge amount was withdrawn from the bank -- Further, this loan amount is not paid through negotiable instrument, as per provisions of the Income-Tax Act, such a huge amount cannot be paid in cash – Held, it is for the complainant to show that the cheque was issued for legally enforceable debt -- Presumption u/s 139 of the NI Act has been rebutted from the evidence of the complainant itself -- Reasonable doubt exists in the prosecution case and the Courts below have ignored all these facts and convicted the accused/petitioner -- Petitioner is acquitted.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 22.01.2015