Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2022 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (1) TMI 5 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - insufficient fund - preponderance of probabilities - failure to substantiate that the demand notice was served upon the accused within statutory period of 30 days - complainant also had failed to establish that she had any enforceable debt to the accused - acquittal of the accused - HELD THAT:- Firstly, after going through the demand notice dated 02.03.2015, it transpires that learned Advocate on instruction of the complainant had written that she submitted the cheque on 12.01.2015 for encashment, but, on the same date, the banker of the accused had issued a returned Memo stating inter alia that as the fund was insufficient, the cheque was returned back. In the said demand notice, the complainant did not state that she was out of station at the relevant point of time. The complainant is found to be very categorical in her statement that on the same date i.e. on 12.01.2015 when she deposited the cheque to her banker, on the same day, she came to learn about the dishonour of the said cheque. In such circumstance, in my opinion, the complainant ought to have established the fact that she was out of station at the relevant point of time and she returned back on 31.01.2015. But, it is noticed that she has not adduced any such evidence in order to prove her absence during that period and staying her at a place other than that of her permanent residence at Agartala and she received the information about the dishonour of cheque only on 31.01.2015. One more striking point is that, usually, after receipt of the returned Memo intimating the dishonour of cheque, the banker would intimate the person who deposits the cheque for encashment, but, the complainant has not brought on record the said intimation given by her banker i.e. SBI, the reason best known to her. It is also surfaced in her cross-examination that she has categorically stated that "it is a fact that I have no business relation with the accused." In view of such statements made by the complainant at the time of her cross-examination, there was obvious reason for the trial court to come to a finding that the complainant has failed to establish her case that she had any business relation with the accused - it is settled proposition of law that for rebutting the fact that might lead to the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act, the standard of proof is of preponderance of probabilities, which the accused in the present case has been able to rebut. The instant appeal stands dismissed.
|