the order dated 02.02.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge03 (East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Crl. Appeal No.74/2016 (old No.14/2015) titled Sanjeev Sharma Vs. State etc . The said first appeal preferred by the respondent accused was allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the judgment dated 29.05.2015 passed by the learned MM-01 Karkardooma Courts, East, New Delhi convicting the accused/ respondent herein was set aside. The petitioner had preferred a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the premise that the cheque issued by the respondent towards repayment of a friendly loan had been dishonoured upon presentation and payment not made despite issuance of a statutory notice within time. The case of the petitioner was that in the month of January 2013, he had advanced a loan of Rs.2 Lakhs to the respondent accused. In repayment of the said loan, the cheque for Rs. 2 Lakhs dated 15.03.2013 was issued by the respondent accused, which had been dishonoured upon presentation. The learned Additional Sessions Judge while acquitting the respondent referred to the cross-examination of the petitioner, wherein he has admitted that he had not shown this amount in his income-tax returns. No explanation had been given by the petitioner for this omission. Admittedly, there was no other document/ receipt taken by the petitioner while allegedly advancing the said loan. In these circumstances, the learned ASJ has held that the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act stood rebutted.
