S. MUKANCHAND BOTHRA Vs. P. MANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Criminal Appeals arise out of the judgment of acquittal dated 07.10.2011 in C.C.Nos. 6788 and 6787 of 2002 on the file of the learned VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai.

(2.) THE facts of the case are as follows:

(3.) CHALLENGING the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court, the party -in -person/appellant/complainant has submitted that once issuance of cheque was admitted by the accused, the complainant is entitled to invoke presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that the cheque was issued for discharging legally subsisting liability and the presumption is rebuttable one. But the respondent/accused has not rebutted the presumption by preponderance of probabilities. Whereas the trial Court has wrongly held that burden is shifted upon the complainant to prove that the cheque is issued for discharging legally subsisting liability. It is further submitted that the trial Court has held that the complainant has not obtained licence for money lending business, which is against law and the income tax returns shows that the debt of the accused was not mentioned in the liability column. But it will not come under the liability column. Since it is an asset, it was mentioned in the assets column. The trial Court without considering the above aspects, has erroneously acquitted the respondent/accused. To substantiate his arguments, the party -in - person relied upon the following decisions: