Suresh Kumar Kabra (HUF) Vs State of West Bengal & Anr. (Calcutta High Court)
The Calcutta High Court dismissed the criminal appeal and affirmed the acquittal in proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, holding that the complainant failed to establish the existence of a legally enforceable debt after the statutory presumption under Section 139 stood effectively rebutted.
The case arose from the dishonour of a cheque allegedly issued towards repayment of a loan. The complainant contended that all statutory ingredients under Section 138 were fulfilled, including issuance of the cheque, dishonour for insufficiency of funds, service of the statutory demand notice, and non-payment within the prescribed period. The complainant argued that the Trial Court wrongly acquitted the accused by relying on the absence of a money-lending licence under the Bengal Money Lenders Act, 1940, despite the statutory presumption available under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The complainant further submitted that the accused’s explanation that several signed blank cheques had been handed over for accounting purposes was unsupported by evidence and was insufficient to rebut the statutory presumption. It was also argued that even a signed blank cheque attracts the presumption under Section 139 unless rebutted by cogent evidence and that the existence or absence of a money-lending licence has no bearing on proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
