The Supreme Court of India noticed that in a cheque bounce case the complainant is bound to unfold the details of his/her financial capacity, while a question is raised by the accused through leading evidence to that effect.
The accused questioned the financial capacity of the complainant in the case (Basalingappa vs. MUudibasappa). It was brought on record that, between the years 2009-2011 the complainant hasRs. 18 Lakhs to different people including the accused. Along with that, the emphasize was that the complainant was a retired officer of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation since 1977 and encashed his retirement benefits of Rs. 8 lakhs, which means there was no financial capacity.
The bench observed that the evidence leading towards questioning the financial capacity of the complainant, which indicated that apart from Rs. 6 lakhs of loan given to the accused, Rs. 18 Lakhs were given to different people with a span of 2 years.
The court stated that it cannot insist on a person to lead negative evidence. However, the court also admitted that the defence raised by the accused is a probable defence and the findings of the trial court that the complainant failed to prove his financial capacity are based on evidence led by the defence.