The Court noted that despite stating that the transaction for which the cheque was given as security was complete, Santoshi had not produced proof of the same.
In fact, the statement led the Court to conclude that there were indeed transactions between the complainant and Santoshi, for which the cheque was written.
Based on the documents and evidence on record, the Court concluded that the complainant had successfully proved the execution of the cheque. Furthermore, it noted that Santoshi had on one hand claimed that he had not signed the cheque but on the other, had produced a photocopy of the cheque that had his signature.
Therefore, the Court held that Santoshi had failed to rebut the presumption under section 139 of NI Act. Accordingly, it sentenced Santoshi to 2 years in prison and directed him to pay ₹20 lakhs as compensation to the complainant.
Source: Barandbench
