9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1768X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2.07.2010. In discharge of said liability, the accused-petitioner issued a cheque bearing No.034212, dated 04.03.2012, dated 04.03.2012 for Rs. 15,00,000/- drawn Axis Bank Branch, Palwal. The said cheque on presentation was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. After issuing the requisite notice, a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, was filed. After recording preliminary evidence, the accused-petitioner was summoned. The petitioner in addition to his own statement, examined Saurab Gupta as CW1, Akash Sharma as CW2, Vineet Kumar as CW3 and placed some documents. To defend himself, the accused-petitioner examined himself as DW1 and also examined Parveen Kumar as DW2. After hearing learned counsel for the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 15,00,000/- to the accused- petitioner on 02.07.2010 and that accused-petitioner had issued cheque bearing No.034212, dated 04.03.2012 drawn on his account. The said loan was stated to be advanced as a friendly loan. The complainant has admitted in his cross-examination that he is an Income Tax Practitioner. He took admission in LL.B. in the year 2005 and after completion his LL.B., he got licence in the year 2008. Thereafter, he started practicing as an Assistant with Mr. R.P. Goyal, Advocate, who used to pay him Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 6,000/- per month. The friendly loan was stated to be advanced on 02.07.2010 i.e. nearly after two years he started to practice as an Assistant under a senior advocate. He belongs to a modest family. It has als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not give him any cheque. He also stated that nobody was present when he advanced the loan to the accused-petitioner. From the cross-examination of the complainant, it is clear that there was fiduciary relationship between the parties. The complainant, who happens to be income tax practitioner used to file the income tax return and the payable tax was taken by him from the accused-petitioner. The case of the accused-petitioner is that the blank cheque was given for payment of the tax and that same was filled in by the accused-petitioner. The case of the complainant is that the loan was advanced on 02.07.2010 and the cheque 4 of 7 dated 04.03.2012 for Rs. 15,00,000/- was given. It is nowhere stated that a blank cheque was given earlier and i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , who is an income tax practitioner, will advance such a heavy loan to his client without any close relationship and without obtaining any writing to this effect. There was heavy burden on the complainant. In such circumstances, 5 of 7 the accused-petitioner is successful in raising reasonable doubts that the complainant might have misused one of the blank cheques given to him for payment of income tax for depositing the same in the Treasury. In order to support his case, the accused-petitioner took a risk by stepping himself into the witness box and offered himself for cross- examination. He asserted in his cross-examination that the tax return was deposited in cash and the complainant used to take cash from him. His version was also supp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
