Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2021 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (8) TMI 39 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - rebuttal of presumption about the legally enforceable debt or not - cross-examination of witnesses - preponderence of probablities - Section 139 of the N.I. Act - HELD THAT:- By making that suggestion, the accused, once again, has re-confirmed of availing a loan from the complainant and also issuing a cheque to the complainant. Therefore, it is not a mere through presentation of the cheque and presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act, the inference of existence of a legally enforceable debt in favour of the complainant can be drawn, but, by leading cogent evidence also, the complainant has shown that, there existed a legally enforceable debt in his favour which was payable by the accused and in that regard, the cheque in question was given to him. The accused in the cross-examination of PW-1 has also produced a certified copy of the two documents, one is shown to be an agreement dated 19-04-2012 and another is a cheque for a sum of ₹ 7,00,000/- dated 16-01-2013 shown to have been drawn by him as a proprietor of Athithi Residency in favour of one Sri. Lakshman Naik, to show that, the said person by name Sri. Lakshman Naik had filed cases in the Civil Court and that he was favouring the complainant - the complainant, apart from existence of a presumption of a legally enforceable debt in his favour, could able to prove his case by leading cogent evidence, both oral and documentary, but the accused who failed to take any specific defence in the matter, could not even make out a case on preponderance of probabilities. Since both the Trial Court and the Sessions Judge's Court, after analysing the materials placed before them, have rightly convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and have passed an order of sentence which is proportionate to the gravity of the proven guilt against the accused, the impugned judgments cannot be called as perverse, illegal or capricious, warranting any interference at the hands of this Court. Criminal Revision Petition stands dismissed as devoid of merits.
|