SEEVATHATHAI Vs. RAJKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the acquittal for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The case of the appellant is that the respondent gave a cheque for Rs.1,50,000/- and when that was presented it was dishonoured and subsequently notice was issued in accordance with the Negotiable Instruments Act, and thereafter a complaint was filed. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, held that the offence has not been proved and consequently acquitted the respondent herein. Against the order of acquittal, the present appeal has been filed.

(2.) Mr. A.K.Kumaraswamy, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that as per the judgment of the Supreme court, to prove a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the only requisitions are that, there must be issuance of cheque, subsequent dishonour and failure to pay the amount. If these are proved, it shall be presumed that an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been committed. The learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in HITEN P. DALAL v.. BRATINDRANATH BANERJEE [2001(3) CTC 243] in support of his argument. Placing reliance on this judgment, especially to paragraphs 20 and 21, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has proved the case and the trial Court has erred in acquitting the respondent.

(3.) Mr. Sairam, learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that the respondent has adduced evidence to rebut the presumption under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial Court, accepting the evidence adduced by the accused, found that there is no existing liability and therefore acquitted the accused and this judgment is legally sustainable and there is no infirmity, which requires this Court to interfere with the judgment.