AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G. Yethirajulu, J.—Since all these matters arise out of the same transaction, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
The petitioner is the accused in C.C. Nos. 43 of 2007,41 of 2007 and 433 of 2006 on the file of the Special Prohibition and Excise Court at Srikakulam, filed for the offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for short ''the Act''.
The complainants are the wife and two sons of the petitioner. The petitioner is alleged to have issued three cheques to them and when they presented them in the Bank, they were bounced. Therefore, they filed the complaints.
The petitioner contends that there is no obligation for him to pay the cheque amounts to his wife and two sons, but when he kept the cheques in the almirah, they were stolen by them and presented to the Bank, Therefore, the prosecution is liable to be quashed against the petitioner.
When once a cheque is in the hands of the complainant, a presumption u/s 139 of NI Act can be drawn.
Section 139 of the Act reads as follows:
Presumption in favour of holder - It shall be presumed , unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in Section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability.
According to this section, there is a presumption that the cheque is issued for discharge of the legally enforceable debt. When once that presumption is available, it is for the petitioner to rebut the said presumption by adducing such evidence to show that under so and so circumstances, the cheques went to the hands of the complainants. It is a question of fact to be decided during the course of trial of the cases and at this stage the proceedings are not liable to be quashed against the petitioner in the said cases,
Hence, the criminal petitions are dismissed,