Summary
The Court reversed acquittals in two cheque-dishonour complaints arising from a running mercantile account. The complainant’s evidence established cheques issued for credit purchases, attracting the statutory presumption; cash-sale receipts and cheque-number sequencing did not rebut it. The accused was convicted in both complaints and ordered to pay Rs.2,97,150, including Rs.50,000 compensation. No substantive imprisonment was imposed given the age of the transactions, but six months’ imprisonment applied on default.
Issues
- Whether cash receipts and the alleged use of blank security cheques rebutted the debt presumption on these mercantile transactions.
- Whether omission of detailed cash-versus-credit averments justified rejecting the complainant’s evidence.
Held
- The complainant’s testimony established issuance for credit purchases and attracted the section 139 presumption. The courts below wrongly disregarded that evidence merely because the complaint did not separately describe cash and credit transactions. (¶ 16–18)
- Rebuttal did not require proof beyond reasonable doubt and could rest on probable facts or circumstances, but bare denial was insufficient. Here the cash receipts did not disprove the separate credit debt, and the claim that paid-for blank cheques remained unreturned was not credible. (¶¶ 14, 17, 19)
- The complainant had no control over the drawer’s cheque-number sequence. A later-numbered cheque bearing an earlier date did not establish misuse of blank cheques. (¶ 15)
- Both acquittals were reversed and section 138 convictions entered. Given the 2003 transactions, the Court imposed monetary relief with a default sentence rather than substantive imprisonment. (¶ 19–20)
Result
Appeals allowed; accused convicted under section 138 in both complaints. Rs.2,97,150 fine, including Rs.50,000 compensation, payable to the complainant through the Trial Court within twelve weeks; six months’ imprisonment in default. No substantive imprisonment imposed.