FACTS- In this case, the petitioner, through its partner, Ramesh Kumar Gupta, had lodged four complaint cases under the aforesaid provision, after four cheques, alleged to have been issued by the accused/respondent no.1, were dishonoured on the ground of insufficiency of funds. The petitioner claims that these cheques were issued between 07.11.2008 and 24.11.2008, drawn on the Axis Bank Limited, Burra Bazar in Kolkata. Four independent complaint cases were lodged in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Kolkata by the petitioner. The petitioner contended before the Trial Court that it had granted financial assistance to the accused/respondent no.1 and the said cheques were issued by the accused/respondent no.1 in discharge of her liability towards the petitioner. The accused/respondent no.1 had taken the defence that the petitioner had not provided any financial assistance, but money was advanced to the accused/respondent no.1 for undertaking stock market related transactions through her account. She deposed as a defence witness. The defence case, in essence, was that the cheques, the dishonour of which is the subject of this proceeding, were neither issued nor handed over to the complainant, but these were illegally procured by the complainant/petitioner from the custody of the investigating agency i.e., CBI and were subsequently presented for encashment intentionally.

The trial Court, found that the impugned cheques were not part of the cheque book seized by CBI and these were issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt. The accused/respondent no.1 came to be convicted by the Trial Court for commission of offence under Section 138 of the 1881 Act. The Trial Court found that she had failed to rebut the presumption contained in Section 118 read with Section 139 of the 1881 Act.

ISSUE- Whether Court Can Refuse To Interfere With Concurrent Findings That Cheque Wasn't Issued Towards Legally Enforceable Debt?

OBSERVATION- The First Appellate Court set aside this finding and acquitted the accused/respondent no.1. It found that the complainant/petitioner had failed to produce any document showing any loan transaction. In the opinion of the First Appellate Court, there was no proof of any loan transaction and the complainant/petitioner had also failed to prove handing over the cheques to it by the accused/respondent no.1.

The petitioner filed an appeal against acquittal of the first respondent in respect of offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, has been dismissed. Against the High Court's decision to acquit the accused, the complainant approached the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution by filing the Special Leave Petition.

The court clarified that the interference of the Supreme Court would not be warranted under Article 136 when the impugned findings are not perverse or based on evidence. The court found that there exists no perversity in the High Court's and First Appellate Court's decision to warrant the court's interference under Article 136 as both the Courts have examined the evidence threadbare held against the complainant/petitioner. Accordingly, the Special Leave Petition was dismissed.