Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2022 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (2) TMI 131 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - legally enforceable debt or liability - rebuttal of presumption - case of the Respondent-Bank was that although the loan amount was disbursed for a particular purpose, the utilization of the same did not appear to be for the said purpose - HELD THAT:- The material on record demonstrates that an account of the Applicant was opened with the Respondent-Bank. The Respondent-bank adjusted the balance amount i.e. ₹2,64,100/- towards the outstanding loan and proceeded on the basis that amount of ₹3,00,000/- withdrawn by the Applicant was to be returned with applicable interest. The record shows that the Respondent-Bank placed on record statement of the savings bank account of the Applicant with the Society as exhibit 34 and statement at exhibit 28 was also placed in support of the claim of the bank that the amount recoverable from the Applicant along with interest came to ₹3,60,910/-. Since the aforesaid documentary evidence was placed on record to support the oral evidence of the witnesses examined in support of the case of the Respondent-Bank, it becomes clear that the conclusion rendered by the Magistrate that the subject cheque was indeed for satisfying the said outstanding amount and therefore relatable to legal debt or liability, cannot be said to be erroneous. The conclusion is based on proper appreciation and interpretation of oral and documentary evidence on record. There is no dispute about the fact that the subject cheque was signed by the Applicant and that, therefore, the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the aforesaid Act applied in full force. There was nothing brought on record on behalf of the Applicant to rebut such presumption and hence, it cannot be said that the conviction of the Applicant was erroneous. The sentence imposed by the Magistrate also appears to be reasonable given the facts and circumstances of the present case. This Court finds that no case is made out for interference with the concurrent orders passed by the two Courts below - the Revision Application is dismissed.
|