Facts:

• Anss Rajashekhar (Appellant) borrowed Rs. 15 lakhs from the Respondent-Complainant and issued a cheque for Rs. 5 lakhs for repayment in February 2004.
• Augustus Jeba Ananth, Respondent-complainant and creditor, was an individual who received the cheque from the Appellant.
• The Appellant's cheque, issued on 9 March 2005, was dishonoured twice due to insufficient funds. Despite multiple attempts to realise the cheque and issuing a notice of demand, the Appellant did not make the payment.
• The Respondent- complainant filed a complaint before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bangalore (CC No. 26999 of 2006) under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on 9 September 2005.
• The Trial Court acquitted the Appellant on 31 January 2009. The complainant filed Criminal Appeal No. 285 of 2009 before the High Court, which, on 29 October 2010, remitted the case to the Trial Court based on the Supreme Court's judgment in Rangappa vs. Sri Mohan (2010) 11 SCC 441. The Trial Court convicted the Appellant on 5 March 2011.
• The Appellant appealed this conviction in Criminal Appeal No. 245 of 2011 before the Additional Sessions Judge, which reversed the conviction on 5 March 2012.
• The complainant then filed Criminal Appeal No. 861 of 2012 before the High Court, which reversed the acquittal.
• Hence, the appeal was filed before the Supreme Court.

Background

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore

• The complainant filed a complaint before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The Trial Court delivered the judgment of acquittal for the Appellant.
• The Complainant filed a criminal appeal against the Trial Court's judgment before the High Court. By its judgment dated 29 October 2010, the High Court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the Trial Court, considering the judgment in Rangappa vs. Sri Mohan (2010) 11 SCC 441.
• On remand, the Trial Court convicted the Appellant and sentenced him to one-year imprisonment and a fine of Rs.7 lakhs, with Rs.6.75 lakhs as compensation to the Respondent. (Page 4)

Additional Sessions Judge, Bangalore.

• The Appellant filed a criminal appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Bangalore. By this judgment, the Lower Appellate Court reversed the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court, effectively overturning the earlier decision and acquitting the appellant. (Page 5)

High Court of Karnataka

• The Respondent filed a criminal appeal against the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court before the High Court.
• The High Court reversed the judgment of acquittal, maintaining the conviction under Section 138 but reducing the fine to Rs.5 lakhs, to be paid as compensation to the Respondent. Therefore, the Appellant was to suffer imprisonment for three months. (Page 5)
• Aggrieved by this judgment of the High Court, the Appellant filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Main Issue:

• Whether the accused-Appellant successfully rebutted the presumption of liability under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881? (Page 8)