TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 1245X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of the nature referred to in section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability - Presumption is rebuttable, but there is nothing on record to rebut the presumption. It is not a case where the respondent has not signed the cheque. A meaningful reading of the provisions of the Act, 1881 makes it ample clear that the person signed the cheque over to a payee remains liable and he may adduce any evidence to rebut presumption. Presumption will live, exist and survive and shall end only when contrary is proved by the accused/respondent. Finding of the trial Court is clearly against the provisions of Section 139 of the Act, 1881. When legal presumption is not rebutted no corroboration is required. When the amou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ain Branch Raipur from where endorsement was made and information was given to the appellant stating that there is insufficient fund on the account of the respondent. After the said dishonour of the cheque, the appellant sent a registered legal notice through his counsel on 18.9.2015. The notice was duly accepted by the respondent and thereafter the respondent issued fresh cheque in favour of the appellant on 20.9.2015 to the tune of ₹ 2 lakh which was returned by the bank for the reason and description of insufficient fund. Again notice was issued to the respondent on 14.10.2015 after dishonour of the cheque on 09.10.2015 which was received by the respondent on 16.10.2015, but the amount was not paid and thereafter complaint was file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r namely SK Agrawal (PW-3) and exhibited documents P/1 to P/15. The respondent side exhibited document D/1. Complainant Santram Sahu (PW-1) deposed before the trial Court that the respondent borrowed sum of ₹ 2 lakh on 30.12.2014 and he has assured that the amount shall be repaid by 15.5.2015. For discharging his liability, the respondent issued cheque bearing No.223661 of Karnataka Bank Ltd. Branch Fafadih Chouk, Raipur to the tune of ₹ 2 lakh but the same was dishonoured on 18.9.2015. As per the version of this witness, he issued notice to the respondent and thereafter he again issued a cheque of ₹ 2 lakh bearing No.223666 dated 20.9.2015. This cheque was again dishonoured due to insufficiency of fund. The Bank informed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Act, 1881 reads as under: 118 Presumptions as to negotiable instruments. -Until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made:- (a) of consideration -that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration; (b) as to date -that every negotiable instrument bearing a date was made or drawn on such date; 10. Presumption is rebuttable, but there is nothing on record to rebut the presumption. It is not a case where the respondent has not signed the cheque. A meaningful reading of the provisions of the Act, 1881 makes it ample clear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 138 of the Act, 1881. The trial court shall make effort to liquidate the amount as per provisions of CrPC. It is made clear that if the respondent is sent to jail for non-recovery of amount, the payment of amount shall not be discharged because his detention in jail is a mode of recovery and same is not satisfaction of liability, therefore, his liability shall be discharged only when he pays the amount of ₹ 2,70,000/-, It is directed that if the amount is not deposited within fifteen days the amount shall further carry interest @ 6% per annum in principle amount of ₹ 2 lakh till the realization of the entire amount. The entire fine amount shall be paid to the appellant for discharge of liability. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
