9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1079X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) on 24.01.2005 and issued a post-dated (06.06.2005) cheque- Ex.P.1 on 06.05.2005. When the complainant presented the above cheque for encashment through his banker, the same was dishonoured for the reason 'insufficient funds' under Ex.P.2-Memorandum. Thereafter, the complainant issued a legal notice-Ex.P.3 on 01.08.2005. The accused, having received the same, sent a reply notice (Ex.P.5) on 05.08.2005 with false contentions. Hence, the complaint. 3.2. Before the Trial Court, the complainant himself was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.P.1 to P.5 were marked. On completion of the examination of witness on the side of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., as to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tablished, it is for the accused to discharge the legal presumption attached to the cheque. Mere denial is not sufficient to discharge the legal presumption. In support of his contention, he has also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.803 of 2018 [Kishan Rao v. Shankargouda, decided on 02, July, 2018]. Hence, the learned Senior Counsel prayed for allowing the appeal. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the accused would contend that the evidence adduced on the side of P.W.1 itself clearly indicates that there was no privity of contract between the accused and the complainant. As an accused, he has brought the circumstances to discharge the legal presumption and once legal statutory presumption ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Mere denial by the accused of consideration or issuance of the cheque will not discharge the legal presumption. 10. The evidence of P.W.1, when carefully seen, his entire evidence in cross-examination read together, the same indicates that there is no privity of contract between the accused and himself. In fact, he has shown ignorance about the nature of legal notice issued by the accused and himself. He appears to have totally ignorant of the facts. His entire evidence indicates that only his brother had some dealing with the accused. He has also categorically admitted that he never had any transaction with the accused. When that being the position, advancing huge amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- on 24.01.2005 is highly improbable. Further, adv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
