TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 1088X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to any reason. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused that the complainant is a stranger to accused and he was not acquainted with the complainant, but the evidence of the accused who has been examined as DW1 in his examination-in-chief has admitted that the signature found on the cheque Ex.P1 belongs to him and it is his specific case that the said cheque has been issued to DW2 Ramesh - It is well proposed principles of law in the case of Rangappa Vs. Sri. Mohan [2010 (5) TMI 391 - SUPREME COURT] wherein it has been observed by the Hon ble Apex Court that once the cheque relates to the account of the accused and he accepts and admits the signatures on the said cheque, then initial presumption as contemplated under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has to be raised, it is a mandatory presumption and if at all any contentions has been taken by the accused, it is the accused who has to rebut the said presumption on preponderance of probabilities. The petitioner/accused has not made out any good grounds so as to interfere with the orders of the trial Court. The orders of the trial Court deserves to be confirmed - petition dism ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as been inserted patently and the said alteration has been found. Even the said fact has also been substantiated in the evidence of DW1. In his evidence he has specifically deposed that when the accused brought the said cheque, he has written only ₹ 50,000/-, but subsequent suggestions which have been made that 1 has been inserted has been denied. It is his further submission that complainant is stranger to DW2 and if he has issued the cheque in favour of the complainant, then under such circumstances, the question of he requesting DW2 does not arise at all. It is his further submission that the said cheque was given to DW2 and there was some dispute between DW2 and the accused and a false complaint has been filed against the accused. It is his further submission that the evidence of the accused clearly substantiates his case. This aspect has not been properly considered and appreciated by the Courts below. It is his further submission that in order to enforce the said complaint there must be a debt and without there being any debt the cheque has been submitted and requested the accused to pay ₹ 1,50,000/-. He further submitted that the source of income with which the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view the said fact the said decision has been rendered. Keeping in view the submissions and the decision quoted let us consider the evidence on record. As per the case of the complainant the accused borrowed the hand loan of ₹ 1,50,000/- and when it has been demanded to return he has issued the cheque. Insofar as issuance of cheque is admitted by DW1 also. The only contention which has been contended is that there is material alteration of the figure 1 behind 50 . But as could be seen from Ex.P1 the said ₹ 1,50,000/- has also been written in words. As per Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, when once the drawer of the cheque signs and delivers to another, then if it is incomplete negotiable instrument thereby he gives prima facie authority to the holder thereof to make or complete the instrument as a Negotiable Instrument. 9. Taking into consideration the above said facts and circumstances the figures and words written tallies with each other. Then under such circumstances the contention of the petitioner/accused that there is a material alteration of 1 in the said cheque Ex.P1 does not stand to any reason. 10. Be that as it may. If at a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orted in (2010) 11 SCC 441, wherein it has been observed by the Hon ble Apex Court that once the cheque relates to the account of the accused and he accepts and admits the signatures on the said cheque, then initial presumption as contemplated under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has to be raised, it is a mandatory presumption and if at all any contentions has been taken by the accused, it is the accused who has to rebut the said presumption on preponderance of probabilities. 13. Keeping in view the above said proposition of law, if the other contentions which have been taken, are looked into, the said cheque has been issued to one Ramesh DW2, but as could be seen from the evidence of DW2, therein nowhere he has stated that the said cheque has been issued in his favour and even it is suggested by showing Cheque Ex.P1 that it is issued by the accused and the said suggestion has been denied by the said witness. Even he has admitted the fact that handwriting found in the said Ex.P1 is belonging to him. 14. When he himself has come with a version that Ex.P1 has been brought by the accused in blank, after signing it and he has only requested him to fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
