9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 545X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in Crl.A. No. 959/2016, whereby, both the Courts have convicted the accused for the offences under Section 138 of N.I. Act by imposing sentence of fine of Rs. 7,00,000/-, in default Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred with the original ranks occupied by them before the trial Court. 3. The brief factual matrix leading to the case that the complainant and accused are known to each other since long time. On such acquaintance, the accused had borrowed a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- as hand loan by way of cash from the complainant in the month of August-2013 to meet her domestic and family necessities. He promised to repay the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ditional City Civil and Sessions Judge by judgment dated 13.09.2017 has dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment of conviction. Being aggrieved by the these concurrent findings of convictions, this revision petition came to be lodged. 5. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent is absent. 6. The learned counsel for revision petitioner would contend that there is no relationship between the complainant and accused and the debt itself is not established. He is also placed his reliance on Ex.D1 making allegation regarding the cheque-Ex.P1, a complaint was already filed. He would also contend that in the complaint, the allegations were regarding paymen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , statutory presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act is in favour of the complainant. The accused is required to rebut the statutory presumption by leading the cogent evidence on the basis of preponderance of probability. But, except asserting the transaction between herself and Rajiv, no other documents have been produced by the accused. This transaction does not establish that the said cheque was taken by the complainant and very interestingly, after receipt of the legal notice, the accused has not choosen to reply and no explanation is offered. The Ex.D1 itself at a belated stage after her appearance before the trial Court in this case, which disclose that Ex.D1 is a afterthought story. Apart from that, the cross-examination of D.W. 1 i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
