Supreme Court Judgment

Supreme Court Judgment

Signed Cheque Alone Doesn't Prove Debt - showing evidence or circumstantial proof

N.I.Act - S.138, 139, 142, 118 - Evidence Act - S.3 - In a criminal appeal challenging the Karnataka High Court's affirmation of an acquittal in a cheque dishonour case, the Court upheld the principles guiding challenges to acquittals based on concurrent findings. It emphasized that the accused is not required to rebut the presumption under S.139 with an excessively high standard of proof. The Court clarified that in cases under S.138, the defence need not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Held, the appellant, as the original complainant, claimed to have known the respondent for six years, during which the respondent borrowed Rs. 2 lakhs for family needs. In return, the respondent issued a cheque as security for repayment, agreeing to repay the loan within six months, with a signed agreement between the parties. When the respondent failed to repay despite multiple requests, the appellant presented the cheque, which was dishonored due to "insufficient funds." Aggrieved, the appellant sent a demand notice, but the respondent denied the accusations, claiming the loan details were vague. The appellant then filed a private complaint, and the Trial Court noted that the respondent did not explain how the cheque reached the appellant's hands but still dismissed the complaint, acquitting the respondent. The appellant approached the High Court, which affirmed the acquittal, leading him to appeal to the Supreme Court. Court, referencing S.138 Act and the reverse onus under S.139, emphasized that the respondent could disprove the debt by showing evidence or circumstantial proof. The Court found no perversity or lack of evidence in the lower courts' findings, upholding the respondent's acquittal and dismissing the appeal.

#supremecourt

#chequebounce

#signedcheque

#provedebt

#circumstantialproof

#highcourt

#karnatkahighcourt

#dishonourofcheque

#acquittal

#insufficientfund