M/s S.S. Production and Anr. P1: M/s S. S. Production P2: TR. S. Subbiah vs TR. Pavithran Prasanth

Held: Not called for – Reasoning of the courts below is sound that evidence had to be adduced by the petitioners that the said amounts were given for producing a film and were not by way of return of any loan taken, which was not done – Just by taking a counter-stand to raise a probable defence would not shift the onus on the complainant in such a case for the plea of defence has to be buttressed by evidence, either oral or documentary – Liability has to be discharged by the person concerned and that would be a legally enforceable debt repayable, under the purview of s.138 – If the amount were by way of investments in a film being jointly produced, the need per se to issue cheques, including interest would not have arisen at all, which has not been explained by the petitioners at all – Onus to first prove as to how the amount that is said to have been given by the complainant to the petitioners could have been given, would not be fatal as receipt of the amount has not been denied, much less disputed by the petitioners – No error in the High Court opining that in view of the denial by the General Power of Attorney holder of the complainant with regard to any joint deal/venture with the petitioners in film production, the onus would not shift on the complainant and would remain on the petitioners to prove that such receipt of money was not with regard to repayment of an amount legally due to the complainant – Accused have not been able to dislodge the statutory presumption u/s.139 – Exercising the judicial discretion, it is directed that the sentences of imprisonment awarded in each complaints, would run concurrently. [Paras 8-14]