9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (10) TMI 598X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore in CC NO. 3400/2002, was dismissed. Respondent allegedly gave a hand loan of Rs. 1,20,000/- to the appellant on 2 4.10.2000. In discharge of the said debt the appellant is said to have issued two cheques for Rs. 60,000/- each on 26.4.2001 and 5.4.2001. The said cheques were presented before the bank on July 10, 2001 and were returned dishonoured on the ground that sufficient fund therefor was not available. Upon service of notice upon the respondent, a criminal complaint was filed. By an order dated 20th November, 2002, cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, was taken by the learned Magistrate. Before the learned Trial Judge, the parties examined the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to one Satya Murthy who was a property dealer, in respect whereof the learned Trial Judge held: "In the present case, the accused, to prove the arguments, has not produced any documentary evidence supports before the Court. On the contrary, the Accused has admitted his Signature on the document Ex.P.12 produced by the Complainant. It is marked as Ex.P12-A. In the Ex.P12, there is writing to the effect of having given the disputed cheques to the Complainant. As stated in this, these cheques are produced on 2.7.01. Therefore, in the absence of arguments of this Accused, having not produced in support, cannot be accepted. In case, if this Accused had really having given the Chequ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for misuse of cheque. Opining that no sufficient reason has been assigned for allowing the said application for adduction of additional evidence, it was held that the burden was on the appellant - accused to rebut the case of the complainant. It was held that no material has been brought on record by the appellant to show that the cheques had been issued in favour of Satyamurthy, particularly, when he had not been examined. Before the Appellate Court, a further contention was raised that the complainant had not been residing at the address given by him, in support whereof a purported report of a police constable was produced. The learned Appellate Court opined: "All the said contentions a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an ofence and shall, without prejudice to any other provision of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may be extended to two years, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless- (a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is dr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue course lies upon him." Section 139 of the Act reads: "139. Presumption in favour of holder- It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque, of the nature referred to in Section 138, for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability." Indisputably, in view of the decisions of this Court in Krishna Janardhan Bhat (supra), the initial burden was on the complainant. The presumption raised in favour of the holder of the cheque must be kept confined to the matters covered thereby. The presumption raised does not extend to the extent that the cheque was issued for the discharge of any debt or liability which is required to be prove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
