Complainant filed a complaint alleging that applicant, who was running an institution (Pleasant Health Welfare Foundation) at Dongargaon had appointed the complainant and 21 other persons on agreement basis. Complainant and other persons deposited some amount as per the agreement, with the institution. In the agreement it was mentioned that the amount so deposited would be refunded after completion of probation period of one year. It is the case of the complainant and other persons that after completion of probation period, they have not been regularized therefore, the complainant and others demanded for refund of the amount of Rs. 3, 16,000/- from the applicant/institution. The applicant issued a cheque bearing for Rs. 3, 16, 000/- in favour of the complainant. When the cheque was deposited by the complainant in the bank, the bank dishonoured, stating therein that payment of the cheque was not being made because of insufficient amount being in the account of the drawer. Thereafter, the opposite party-applicant was sent a legal notice dated 10/05/2004 and the complaint was presented in the Court against the opposite party-accused. Thereafter, complainant issued a legal notice and when the applicant did not respond to the same, complaint was filed against the applicant for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. After framing the charges and recording of evidence, learned trial court allowed the complaint filed by the respondent holding that the applicant has committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default stipulation. Against this order, the applicant filed criminal appeal before the appellate authority whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence was affirmed and filed revision before the Chhattisgarh High Court.
Court relied on judgment of Supreme Court in Rangapa V. Sri Mohan, (2010) 11 SCC in which court held that once issuance of a cheque and signature thereon are admitted, presumption of a legally enforceable debt in favour of the holder of the cheque arises. It is for the accused to rebut the said presumption, though accused need not adduce his own evidence and can rely upon the material submitted by the complainant. However, mere statement of the accused may not be sufficient to rebut the said presumption.
Section 139 was rightly raised which was not rebutted by the accused. That both the trial court and the appellate court convicted the applicant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. Thus the Trial Court and the Appellate Court arrived at the specific concurrent factual finding that the cheque had admittedly been signed by the applicant-accused.
86540
103860
630
114
59824
