In Brief
A complainant sued the respondent for dishonoring a cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, claiming it was issued to secure a two-lakh rupee loan. The trial court and High Court acquitted the respondent, finding contradictions in the complainant's account, absence of the debt details, and lack of financial documentation. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that while an admitted cheque signature triggers a presumption of debt under Section 139, it is rebuttable. The complainant failed to prove the existence of a legally enforceable debt and financial capacity, allowing the respondent to rebut the presumption on preponderance of probabilities. Concurrent findings of acquittal cannot be interfered with absent perversity or grave injustice.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.