1. Background of the Case: Ravi Kumar, the complainant, alleged that Rangaswamy, the accused, borrowed Rs. 55,000 from him in September 2012, promising to repay it within six months. When Ravi Kumar demanded repayment after six months, Rangaswamy issued a cheque for Rs. 55,000. However, the cheque bounced due to insufficient funds.
2. Legal Notice and Complaint: Ravi Kumar sent a legal notice to Rangaswamy after the cheque bounced, demanding repayment. When Rangaswamy failed to respond or repay the amount, Ravi Kumar filed a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
3. Defense Argument: Rangaswamy argued in court that he had not received a legal notice, which he claimed was mandatory under Section 138(b) of the N.I. Act. Additionally, he disputed the existence of the loan transaction and contended that the cheques were issued to someone else, Kantharaju, and were misused by Ravi Kumar.
4. Court’s Analysis: The court carefully examined the evidence presented by both parties. It noted that Rangaswamy failed to provide any substantial evidence to support his defense. Despite denying the loan transaction, Rangaswamy did not dispute the signature on the cheque or provide any documentation regarding the alleged transaction with Kantharaju.
5. Presumption and Burden of Proof: In cases of dishonored cheques, there is a legal presumption that the cheque was issued for a debt or liability. However, this presumption can be rebutted by the accused by providing cogent evidence to substantiate their defense. Since Rangaswamy’s defense was not credible and lacked supporting evidence, the court inferred that he had indeed made a transaction with Ravi Kumar and issued the cheque for that purpose.
6. Decision: Based on the analysis of the evidence and application of legal principles, the court upheld the trial court’s decision to convict Rangaswamy under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The court found no reason to interfere with the conviction order and dismissed Rangaswamy’s petition.
In summary, the case highlights the importance of providing credible evidence to rebut legal presumptions, especially in cases involving dishonored cheques. Without substantial evidence to support his defense, the accused failed to overturn the presumption that the cheque was issued for a legitimate transaction, leading to his conviction.