Kerala High Court Upholds Acquittal in Cheque Bounce Case
Court rules that accused successfully rebutted presumption of liability under Negotiable Instruments Act
In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court upheld the acquittal of an accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in the case of Shailappan v. Sabitha. The judgment was delivered by Mr. Johnson John, J., who reaffirmed the trial court's decision that the complainant failed to prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The case revolved around a cheque issued by the accused, Sabitha, for Rs. 1,00,000, which was dishonored due to insufficient funds. The complainant, Shailappan, alleged that the cheque was issued towards the discharge of a debt. Despite the issuance of a statutory notice, the accused did not pay the amount, leading to legal proceedings.
The High Court emphasized the rebuttable nature of presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court reiterated that while the execution of a cheque carries a presumption of discharge of debt, this presumption can be contested by the accused through evidence or circumstances that create doubt about the existence of the debt.
During the trial, the complainant's inability to establish the date of execution and issuance of the cheque, coupled with contradictions in his testimony, weakened his case. Additionally, the accused's father testified that the cheque was given as a blank cheque for a jewellery purchase, further casting doubt on the complainant's claims.
Referring to precedents like M.S. Narayana Menon v. State of Kerala and Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa, the court noted that the standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence presented, including the accused's father's testimony and documents related to jewellery transactions, supported the accused's defense.
The court also addressed the argument regarding the failure to reply to the statutory notice, clarifying that courts must assess the totality of evidence and the accused's probable defense before drawing conclusions.
Ultimately, the High Court found that the trial court had rightly concluded that the evidence and circumstances raised sufficient doubt about the existence of the alleged debt. The court's decision underscores the importance of thorough evidence examination and the standard of proof required in cheque bounce cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Bottom Line:
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 - Acquittal of accused - Presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I Act is rebuttable - Standard of proof required to rebut statutory presumption is preponderance of probabilities - Accused not required to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt.
Statutory provision(s): Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Sections 138, 118, 139
Shailappan v. Sabitha, (Kerala) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2795193
