Full Judgment
1. These two appeals have been preferred against the order of dismissal passed by the XIII Addl.CMM, Bangalore in CC 4834 and 4835 / 2004 on 9.7.2008.
2. According to the complainant. the accused had issued two cheques - one for Rs.5 lakhs and another for Rs.2,50,000/- drawn on Amanath Co-operative Bank Ltd. Shivajinagar Branch. The complainant and the accused commenced business under a partnership - M/s Events 2000 at b'lsoor Road, Bangalore. Also according to them, misunderstanding alose and the accused informed the complainant to go out of the Firm and also informed the complainant to settle the accounts. In that connection, two cheques had been issued by the accused to the complainant and those cheques were dishonored for insufficient funds, on presentation during June 2004. After dishonour when the complainant informed the accused and demanded the money, the accused requested the complainant to give back the cheques and also assured to make cash payment. But He failed to make payment. Once again, the complainant presented the cheque issued by the accused to his banker. At that time, the cheques were dishonored with an endorsement account closed.' Hence, complaints came to be filed. The trial court, on the ground that the complainant had not disclosed that in the capacity of proprietor of Extremes Designers the cheques were issued by the accused and, until the complainant establishes that the accused had issued the cheque to discharge liability, he is not entitled for relief, dismissed the complaints.
3. As per the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act under S.139 as well as in the case of Ranguppa Vs Mohan - AIR 2010 SC 2010, the Apex Court has held that initial presumption is in favour of the complainant and it is for the accused to disprove the same not by mere probable explanation but, he has to offer proof of explanation.
4. The trial court on the ground that complainant has not discharged the burden as regards the monetary transaction between the complainant and me accused and the capacity of the accused - whether individual or as a proprietor, has dismissed the complaint. The matter has not been properly dealt with.
In the circumstances, to afford opportunity to both the parties and for proper disposal of the case, the impugned orders are set aside. Matter is remitted to the trial court for disposal of the same in accordance with law and. if need be to lead additional evidence. All contentions are lied open. Parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 16"' December, 2010.
Appeals are allowed. Send back the records.