Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Section 138—Dishonour of cheque—Acquittal—Petition for leave to appeal—Failure to provide any substantive proof of financial capacity casts serious doubts on the petitioner's version of events—Inconsistencies in the complainant's statements regarding the date and the mode of loan advancement further weaken his case—Mere acknowledgment of liability of Rs. 17,00,000 in insolvency petition filed by second respondent does not conclusively establish that cheque in question was issued in discharge of the said liability—Cheque amount of Rs. 19,76,500 does not match the insolvency liability of Rs. 17,00,000, and the petitioner has failed to establish a clear nexus between the two transactions, further weakening his case—Handwriting expert's report, though corroborative, does not independently establish a legally enforceable debt—Petitioner, despite having ample opportunity, failed to provide cogent evidence to sustain the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act—Petitioner's case suffered from inconsistencies and contradictions, including failure to mention key details of loan transaction, absence of supporting witnesses, and lack of direct evidence linking the said cheque to the legally enforceable debt—Burden to prove debt rested upon complainant and mere issuance of a cheque did not conclusively establish liability—Complainant has clearly failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that cheque was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt—No illegality or error found in order of acquittal passed by the Magistrate—Petition dismissed.
[Paras 29 to 38]