Nature of transaction -- Presumption u/s 139 of N.I. Act -- 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

Presumption of Legally enforceable liability – After purportedly drawing the presumption u/s 139 of the NI Act, the Trial Court proceeded to question the want of evidence on the part of the complainant as regards the source of funds for advancing loan to the accused and want of examination of relevant witnesses who allegedly extended him money for advancing it to the accused -- This approach of the Trial Court had been at variance with the principles of presumption in law -- After such presumption, the onus shifted to the accused and unless the accused had discharged the onus by bringing on record such facts and circumstances as to show the preponderance of probabilities tilting in his favour, any doubt on the complainant's case could not have been raised for want of evidence regarding the source of funds for advancing loan to the accused-appellant.

(SC) Decided on: 15.03.2019

Scope of revision is limited to the extent of illegalities or infirmities committed by a court while answering the controversy – Plea of the accused that the cheques were stolen and forged do not merit any consideration for the reason that no evidence was led – There is presumption in favour of complainant and it was for accused to discharge such onus -- Contention that the complainant failed to discharge the onus of showing sufficient amount with him at the time of advancement of loan -- Not a single question has been addressed to the complainant in this regard in cross-examination -- Such issues are matters of evidence and need to be addressed at the earliest – Conviction order upheld.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 20.04.2015