TMI Blog2006 (9) TMI 622X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount of Rs. 20,000/-. It bears the date 1.1.2001. The petitioner now faces a sentence of S.I. for a period of two months. There is also a direction to pay an amount of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation and in default to undergo S.I. for a period of one month. 3. The signature in the cheque is admitted. The notice of demand was duly received and acknowledged. But no reply is produced and proved. It is undisputed that a reply was sent and received by the counsel for the complainant. The complainant examined herself as PW1 and proved Exts.P1 to P7. In the reply notice and in the course of the trial, the accused took up the stand that the cheque was issued as a signed blank cheque as security not to the complainant, but to her deceased husband as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at it is very clearly stated that the amount was borrowed and as security for repayment the cheque was issued. It is true that the word security is repeated twice in Ext.P3 notice. But according to me it would be myopic to come to the conclusion from that expression employed in the notice that the cheque was not issued for the discharge of any legally enforcible debt/liability. When repayment is assured by issue of a cheque, in common parlance the laity may refer to such handing over of the cheque for discharge of the liability as a conduct to assure and secure payment and discharge of the liability. It would be impermissible from that expression used, which, according to me, only conveys that the lending/borrowal was on the strength of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... back. There is no explanation as to why DW1 did not take any acknowledgment/ voucher from the deceased husband of the complainant when the liability was discharged and the transaction closed. The inherent improbability in the case of discharge pleaded by the petitioner is also one circumstance that must go to assure the court about the acceptability of the oral evidence of PW1. Once the oral evidence of PW1 is accepted, the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act comes into play. That burden has not been discharged by the petitioner. The plea of discharge through DW1 is also so fragile and brittle that it must fall to the ground as improbable and unacceptable. No other contentions on merits have been raised. I am satisfied that the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
