Rebuttal of presumption -- Handwriting expert – Evidence of a hand-writing expert on whether the respondent had filled in the details in the cheque would be immaterial to determining the purpose for which the cheque was handed over -- Presumption which arises on the signing of the cheque cannot be rebutted merely by the report of a hand-writing expert.

(SC) Decided on: 16.08.2022

Nature of transaction -- Source of fund – Conviction by trial court affirmed by Appellate court -- High Court acquitted the accused on the ground that, in the complaint, the Complainant has not specifically stated the nature of transactions and the source of fund. Held, -- High Court has failed to note the presumption u/s 139 of the N.I. Act – Once the initial burden is discharged by the Complainant that the cheque was issued by the accused and the signature and the issuance of the cheque is not disputed by the accused, in that case, the onus will shift upon the accused to prove the contrary that the cheque was not for any debt or other liability – High Court has also failed to appreciate that the High Court was exercising the revisional jurisdiction and there were concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below. Impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court acquitting the accused quashed and set aside -- Accused granted two months’ time to pay the fine, as ordered by the learned first Appellate Court.

(SC) Decided on: 12.08.2022

Dismissal of complaint – Appellant/complainant has averred that the amount of cheque is part of sale consideration which stands belied from the reading of registered sale deed -- Once on preponderance of probabilities the defence creates doubt, the onus shifts on the complainant to prove its case beyond shadow of reasonable doubt and the protective umbrella of Section 139 of the N.I. Act is no more available. Dismissal of complaint order, upheld.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 29.11.2019