In Brief
The appellant was charged under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for issuing a cheque that bounced due to insufficient funds. He claimed the cheque was given on assurance of a loan from a financial institution and that blank cheques had been misused by the complainant. The Supreme Court held that the appellant successfully rebutted the statutory presumption that the cheque was in discharge of debt by establishing, through the complainant's own inconsistent testimony and failure to prove payment, that no legally enforceable debt existed. The High Court's reversal of the first appellate court's acquittal without engaging with the evidence was unjustified. The Court restored the acquittal and allowed the appeal.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.