T. VASANTHAKUMAR versus VIJAYAKUMARI

Citation: [2015] 5 S.C.R. 342 · Decided: 28-04-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: JASTI CHELAMESWAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2015] 5 S,C.R. 342 
T. VASANTHAKUMAR 
v. 
VIJAYAKUMARI 
(Criminal Appeal No.728of2015) 
APRIL28, 2015 
[J. CHELAMESWAR AND 
PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.] 
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - ss. 138 and 139-
Complaint uls 138 - Conviction by trial and appellate court 
- In revision, the High Court acquitted the accused - On 
o appeal, held: In the present case, presumption u/s 139 would 
operate and the burden was on the accused to disprove the 
cheque or existence of any legally recoverable debt or liability 
- Accused failed to rebut such presumption - High Court 
wrongly put the burden of proof on the complaint - Order of 
E conviction restored. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: The presumption mandated by Section 
F 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is in the nature 
of a rebuttable presumption and it is open to the accused 
to raise a defence wherein the existence of a legally 
enforceable debt or liability can be contested. In the 
present case since the cheque as well as the signature 
G has been accepted by the accused respondent, the 
presumption under Section 139 would operate. Thus, the 
burden was on the accused to disprove the cheque or 
the existence of any legally recoverable debt or liability. 
The story brought out by the accused is unworthy of 
H 
342 
T. VASANTHAKUMAR v .. VIJAYAKUMARI 
343 
credit, apart from being unsupported by any evidence. A 
The accused in her evidence brought out nothing to 
prove the debt of 1999 nor disprove the loan taken in 
2006. Thus, High Court was misplaced in putting the 
burden of proof on the complainant. As per Section 139, 
the burden of proof had shifted on the accused which 8 
the accused failed to discharge. Therefore, order passed 
by the High Court is set aside and the judgment 
convicting the respondent for an offence under Section 
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentencing C 
her to pay a fine of Rs.5,55,000/-, in default to suffer 
Simple Imprisonment for five months, is restored. 
[para 9-13] [347-G-H; 348-B-H; 349-A-B] 
Rangappa v. Sri Mohan (2010) 11 SCC 441-
relied on. 
Case Law Reference 
(2010) 11 sec 441 
relied on 
para 9 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal 
Appeal No. 728 of 2015 
D 
E 
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.07.2011 of the 
High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Crl. R. P. No. 263 of F 
2011 
Rajesh Mahale, Krutin R. Joshi, for the Appellant. 
Kiran Suri, Apurva Upamanyu, Dr. Vipin Gupta, for the 
Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J. 1. Leave granted. 
G 
H 
344 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 5 S.C.R. 
A 
2. This appeal, by special leave, arises from the 
B 
judgment and order dated 22-07-2011 passed by the High 
Court of Karnataka in Criminal Revision Petition No.263/2011 
by which the High Court set aside the judgments of the two 
Courts below and acquitted the respondent herein. 
3. The genesis of the litigation in the present case is 
that a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable 
Instruments Act, 1881 was filed by the complainant before the 
XII Magistrate, Bangalore. The learned Magistrate had, after 
C trial, found the defendant guilty and sentenced her to pay 
Rs. 5, 55, 000/- and in default of payment of the said amount, to 
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of five months. This 
order of the learned Magistrate was challenged in the appeal 
before the Fast Track Court, Bangalore, but the same was 
D dismissed by the Fast Track Court. The defendant preferred a 
revision of the Fast Track Court's order before the High Court, 
being Criminal Revision Petition No.263/2011. 
4. The case of the complainant is that he is the owner of 
E the Ullas Theatre situated at Yashwantpur, Bangalore, while 
the defendant is the distributor of films. The two parties had a 
business relationship whereunder the defendant provided 
movies to the complainant for screening at his Theatre. In May 
F 2006, the defendant sought a loan of Rupees Five Lakhs from 
the complainant for supporting the making of a Tamil movie 
"Pokari". The said loan was advanced by the complainant on 
20-05-2006. The defendant had promised to repay the loan 
on release of the said movie. However, the defendant failed to 
G repay the said loan. On repeated requests made by the 
complainant, the defendant on 16-01-2007, gave a cheque 
for Rs.5 lakhs, bearing No.822408, drawn on State Bank of 
Mysore, Vyalikaval Branch, Bangalore. This cheque was 
presented by the complainant on 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.