NAGISETTY NAGAIAH Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) only point that is urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant was that the lower Court erred in coming to the conclusion that Ex.P1-cheque was not issued for the discharge of legally enforceable debt, since the complainant-appellant failed to discharge his initial burden by establishing that Ex.Pl was issued for discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability and as such, the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the Act') cannot be drawn.

(2.) The parties are hereinafter referred to as arrayed by the Trial Court. Though the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed on several grounds, the said point alone was urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant in this appeal. The Trial Court in view of the reported decisions of this Court in B. Mohan Krishna v. Union of India, 1995 (1) ALD 393 (DB) = 1996 Crl.LJ 636, and G.B.Lingam v. Vitta Murali Krishna Murthy, 1997 (1) ALD (Crl.) 940 (A.P) = 1997 (2) ALT (Crl.) 100, held that the initial burden is on the accused to establish that the cheque was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt and then only the burden shifts to the accused to establish that the cheque issued was not of the nature referred to in Section 138 of the Act. Whereas, it was contended on behalf of the complainant before the Court below that the evidence of P.Ws.l to 3 is consistent as to advancing of amount by the complainant to the accused and issuing of Ex.P1-cheque by the accused. Therefore, presumption can be drawn that the cheque was issued for discharging a legally enforceable debt.

(3.) In B. Mohan Krishna's case (supra), it was held as under: