9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 869X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etition is contested by the complainant/respondent. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. Admitted position is that a complaint case under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act was instituted by the respondent against the petitioner. In the complaint, the respondent averred that in the discharge of legally enforceable liability, the petitioner had issued a cheque for the sum of Rs. 21.5 lacs bearing No 978785 dated 28.03.2010 drawn on Syndicate Bank, Dev Nagar, New Delhi in his favour. On presentation, the cheque was dishonoured due to 'insufficient funds'. Despite issuance of legal notice dated 31.5.2010, the petitioner failed to pay the amount within the stipulated time. The respondent examined ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 251 Cr.P.C. dated 1.5.2012, it was the defence of the petitioner that he had taken a loan of Rs. 3.5 lacs from the complainant in June-July, 2007. In lieu of granting of loan, the complainant had obtained the impugned blank signed cheque and an affidavit from him. The loan was granted at a monthly interest @ 5% and the interest was paid upto July, 2009. It could not be paid subsequently due to loss in the business. He, thereafter, tried to settle the dispute with the complainant but in vain. Apparently, there was transaction between the petitioner and the respondent way back in 2007. 6. The respondent filed his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex.CW- 1/A) and reiterated the version given in the complaint. In the crossexamination, he ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f. It is not clear as to how much amount was advanced by the respondent to the petitioner in 2007. In response to the notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. it was claimed that amount of Rs. 3.5 lacs was given in the month of June/July, 2007. The petitioner did not claim if the whole amount was returned in 2009. It was merely stated that interest @ 5% per month was given to the petitioner till July, 2009. No documents, whatsoever, have been placed on record regarding payment of interest to the petitioner. In the cross-examination of CW-1, it was suggested that payment of Rs. 3.5 lacs was given to the petitioner in 2007. In his 313 Cr.P.C. statement altogether different defence has been taken by the petitioner. He came up with the plea that he had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
