Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2023 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (8) TMI 3 - TRIPURA HIGH COURTDishonour of Cheque - false and fabricated cheque - discharge of legally enforceable debt or not - source of income not proved - loans not reflected in ITR - HELD THAT:- This court is of the opinion that the complainant has failed to prove his source of income. It is evident from the record that during the cross-examination in the court below the complainant had stated that he had filed two numbers of NI case against the accused person namely Prakash Tripura for an amount of Rs. 4,60,000 and Rs. 2,00,000/-. The complainant also states that he is a businessman by profession and earning Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- per month approximately. He also lodged one number of NI case against Pranab Chowdhury for an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-. He also admitted that he is not any income tax payee. This court finds it hard to believe if a person is earning barely Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 20,000/- per month what makes him able to advance a sum of Rs. 9,60,000/- in couple of days. Further, it is unreasonable to belief as to giving loan of huge sum to a person coming to have Xerox copy. No transaction is established to consider the cheque amount as legally enforceable debt. Moreover, the citations referred by Mr. D. Sarkar, learned counsel for the appellant is of no relevance to the present context of the case. This court feels that the capacity to advance loans to the accused persons has not been established by the complainant and the alleged loans was not reflected in the ITR by the complainant. The defence of the accused persons that they had not taken any loan from the complainant and signing the blank cheque as security for loans of lesser amount has been subsequently filled up for an inflated amount and misused in filing the present complaint seems quite probable. This Court is of the view that the appellant has failed to prove his projected case against the accused persons and consequently, the instant appeal preferred by the appellant stands dismissed.
|