TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 896X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly after his father discharged the loan. Since no such materials produced before the Court, the trial Court was not able to accept the contention of the petitioner that the cheque was issued by the father of the petitioner only by way of security. In the absence of any rebuttal proof the initial presumption that was taken in favour of the respondent will become the conclusive proof. Since it is not proved by the petitioner that the cheque in question has been issued by way of security, the Courts below held that the petitioner has issued the cheque only for a legally enforceable debt and he is guilty for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed. - Criminal Revision Cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sions Judge in C.A. No. 94/2017. 3. On a private complaint filed by the respondent about the dishonour of the cheque issued by the petitioner, a case in STC No. 69/2012 was taken on file. The allegation of the respondent/complainant is that he being the partner of his firm by name 'P Prakash Textiles' subscribed a chit conducted by the petitioner's chit funds. The total chit amount is ₹ 12,50,000/-. After joining the chit, he paid the monthly subscription to the tune of ₹ 5,51,000/- till 15.09.2004. Thereafter the respondent stopped the chit and did not repay the amount already subscribed by the petitioner towards the chit. Finally the petitioner gave a cheque for a sum of ₹ 6,00,000/- on 08.11.2004 to disch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cheque does not deny its execution. However the said presumption is rebuttable through contrary proof. 9. In this case the petitioner has not chosen to examine his father Pandurangan in order to substantiate his contention that the cheque was issued as security for some other transactions between the respondent and his father. After receiving the legal notice dated 16.05.2005 the petitioner has not chosen to send any reply notice by disowning his liability. Though it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the loan amount availed by his father was discharged, no documents was produced to show the same. Much less, no account details were produced to show that the cheque has been given by the petitioner as security for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
