Appellant who was the original complainant is challenging the judgement of acquittal of accused in cheque bouncing case. Accused for payment of outstanding issued a cheque, which was dishonoured for want of sufficient fund. The complainant issued legal notice and later on filed complaint u/s. 138 of N. I. Act.
Complainant asserts that, outstanding sum is reflecting in balance sheet and he is tax payer. However it is revealed that, complainant has no license to supply coal. Complainant admits that, he is not in a position to disclose when and what quantity of coal he supplied to the accused. Complainant denied that, he misused the cheques.
Court held that, burden is on the accused to make out probable defence. Accused need not step into witness box or adduce direct evidence. It would suffice if the accused is in a position to create reasonable doubt that, the version of complainant is false.
In the present case, there is no disclosure as to when coal is supplied, when and what quantity of coal supplied and what the balance was to be paid. Further balance sheet showing the outstanding is also not produced. In cases where the allegation is that certain goods were supplied and the cheque was issued, it would be hazardous to convict only on the basis of the presumption under section 139 of the Act. Hence accused acquitted.
Industrial Fuel Consultant, Cr.A.no.289/2007, Nagpur