9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 34X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 57(3) of Cr.P.C., imposed by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate in C.C. No. 177 of 2012 by its judgment dated 30.05.2014 and acquitted the respondent/accused from the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the respondent-accused admitted the issuance of cheque and hence he is entitled for presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and therefore, it is for the respondent-accused to rebut the same in the manner known to law. In the instant case, they have not done so. There is no representation on behalf of the respondent. It is an appeal against the acquittal order passed by the Lower Appellate Court. 5. Record reveals that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... signed pro notes and blank signed cheques from the accused and also a sale agreement Ex. P2 dated 08.01.2010, from her as a security for the loan advance. The sale consideration is Rs. 4,00,000/- in which Rs. 3,50,000/- has been shown towards advance. Similarly, another sale agreement Ex. D1 has been executed by brother-in-law of the accused for a sale consideration of Rs. 8,00,000/- in which Rs. 7,00,000/- has been shown as advance. Accused has paid the loan amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- but, the complainant refused to return the documents but has sent a notice Ex. D3 dated 11.12.2012 to wife of accused seeking specific performance of her property. Further, a false complaint has been filed by filling the blank signed cheque issued by the accuse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here was no mentioning of date or details of payment made by the accused, especially, when the loan amount borrowed is Rs. 20 lakhs, the complainant has given the loan of such a huge amount of Rs. 20 lakhs. He could have mention the date on which he had given the loan and hence, the non mentioning of date of giving loan amount in the complaint in his evidence as P.W. 1, assumes significance. 11. In the cross examination, P.W. 1, had categorically admitted that he has not received any document from the accused for borrowing the loan amount of Rs. 20 lakhs in the year, 2012, is a very huge amount. Without getting any document, evidencing such a transaction or hand loan to the extent of Rs. 20 lakhs, without getting any document as a collater ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n various occasions and has accumulated the amount. If, actually he was having the entire amount in the bank why he should withdraw as Rs. 1,00,000/-, Rs. 2,00,000/- on many occasions. He has further added that he has not shown it in the income tax account. He has also taken another stand by stating that he was having some amount in his house. So the complainant has no definite case, as to where from he has taken such huge amount either from the bank or he was having money in his house. Non mentioning of such a huge transaction in the income tax would also strengthen the doubt that he would not have given such a huge amount towards loan. Besides, the complainant has not even whispered even a single word as to the date on which as to how man ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enied by P.W. 1, however, in the later part, he has accepted it. The complainant admitted the sale agreement entered between him with his brother-in-law of the accused on 04.01.2010. 17. Taking into the close dates between the parties and the date of the sale agreement with that of the date of the cheque, the lower appellate Court has rightly come to the conclusion that within a week, two sale agreements have been executed by wife of the accused and brother-in-law of the accused and marking of the documents D1 and D3, the accused has successfully demonstrated that various sale agreements, as a security, for this loan transaction was originally entered between the parties and the said amount of Rs. 3 lakhs, was duly repaid by two cheques da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same in the income tax returns and for which, he has also paid income tax for the said amount. However, he has categorically admitted that he has not disclosed the loan of Rs. 20 lakhs given to the accused in the income tax return. 20. In view of the admission in the cross examination and the specific evidence that Rs. 20 lakhs given from his saving and tax has been duly paid. However, he has not reflected in the income tax return nor he has filed any document after the cross examination of P.W. 1 to show the said statement. Accordingly, the lower appellate Court has rightly disbelieved the said version. So, the complainant has no definite case as from where he has taken such a huge amount either from the bank by way of withdrawal or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
