Cheque Bounce, Contradictions & Acquittal: SC Upholds Accused’s Innocence in ₹2 Lakh NI Act Case : Mere possession of a dishonoured cheque does not automatically result in conviction under Section 138 NI Act. The burden of proving a legally enforceable debt, especially where the accused raises plausible defenses, is crucial; Sri Dattatraya v. Sharanappa,

 

Cheque Bounce, Contradictions & Acquittal: SC Upholds Accused’s Innocence in ₹2 Lakh NI Act Case

In a landmark decision reaffirming principles of criminal jurisprudence and statutory presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal filed by Sri Dattatraya, thereby upholding the acquittal of the accused, Sharanappa, in a cheque bounce case involving a sum of ₹2,00,000.

🏛️ Case Snapshot:

• Case Title: Sri Dattatraya vs. Sharanappa

• Judgment Date: 7th August 2024

• Bench: Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Augustine George Masih

• Citation: 2024 INSC 586

• Provision Involved: Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

---

📌 Background:

• The appellant (complainant) claimed to have lent ₹2,00,000 to the respondent (accused) based on a personal acquaintance.

• A cheque was issued as a guarantee for repayment, along with a signed agreement.

• The cheque bounced due to “insufficient funds” and a legal demand notice was served, but payment wasn’t made.

• The accused, in his defense, stated the cheque was issued to another person (Mallikarjun) as a security in 2012, and he never borrowed money from the complainant.

---

🧑‍⚖️ Trial & Appellate Court’s Observations:

• The Trial Court found the complainant’s statements contradictory and lacking income tax disclosures of the loan, casting doubt on the credibility of the alleged transaction.

• The High Court of Karnataka upheld the acquittal, emphasizing that the presumption under Section 139 NI Act is rebuttable and must be supported by proof of financial capacity and actual debt, which the complainant failed to establish.

---

⚖️ Supreme Court’s Key Findings:

1. Presumption under Section 139 NI Act:

   • The presumption in favour of the holder of the cheque is not absolute.

   • Once signature is admitted, the burden shifts to the accused, but only to the extent of rebutting the presumption on the balance of probabilities.

2. Complainant’s Weak Evidence:

   • No documentary proof of loan (like bank transfers or IT returns).

   • Contradictions in testimony regarding when and why the cheque was issued.

   • Failure to prove how he came into possession of the cheque issued to someone else.

3. Legal Principles Reinforced:

   • Mens rea (intention) is not relevant under Section 138.

   • Concurrent findings of acquittal demand higher scrutiny for appellate interference, which was not warranted here.

4. Judicial Caution Against Reversal of Acquittal:

   • SC reiterated that reversal of acquittal must be based on perversity or miscarriage of justice, not merely on alternate interpretations of evidence.

---

🧠 Legal Takeaway:

This judgment solidifies the position that mere possession of a dishonoured cheque does not automatically result in conviction under Section 138 NI Act. The burden of proving a legally enforceable debt, especially where the accused raises plausible defenses, is crucial.

---

📌 Conclusion:

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court’s and Trial Court’s judgments in favour of the accused, finding no perversity or illegality in the concurrent acquittals.

"Presumptions are powerful tools, but not substitutes for solid proof when rebutted convincingly."