Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2022 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (4) TMI 79 - TRIPURA HIGH COURTDishonor of Cheque - insufficiency of funds - discharge of debt and liability or not - rebuttal of presumption - money not returned even after receipt of notice of complainant - Whether on 08.06.2015 while the cheque was presented to the Triprua Gramin Bank, Udaipur it was dishounoured by the bank due to insufficient fund in the account of the accused? - HELD THAT:- As per Section 146 of NI Act the Court shall, in respect of every proceeding under Chapter XVII, i.e., in respect of proceeding under Section 138 of NI Act as this case, on production of banks slip or memo having thereon the official mark denoting that the cheque has been dishonoured, presume the fact of dishonor of such cheque, unless and until such fact is disproved. In this case, Ext.3 the bank slip there are Bank officials signature and mark denoting the cheque in question was dishonoured due to insufficient of fund in the account of accused and accused failed to adduce any evidence to disprove such presumption. The accused also failed to bring any material during cross-examination to disprove the said presumption - the trial court found that the complainant is able to prove the fact that the cheque vide no.445340, dated 08.06.2014 was dishonoured due to insufficient fund in the account of accused and also due to drawers signature differs - decided in affirmative and in favour of the complainant. Whether the accused even after receipt of the notice of the complainant, did not return the money and did not make arrangement of sufficient fund in his account to make the transaction good and to honour the cheque? - HELD THAT:- The trial court has observed that evidence of PW 1 corroborated by Ext.4, the demand notice dated 12.06.2015 Ext.5 the postal receipt dated 13.06.2015 and Ext, the AD card, From Ext. 4 the trial court found that the complaint issued demand notice to accused on 12.06.2015. From Ext5, the trial court found that the complainant through his advocate sent demand notice to accused by registered post with AD. From Ext.6 the trial court found accused received demand notice issued by complainant through his advocate - In cross-examination, the defence failed to discard the mentioned evidence. No suggestion is given in cross-examination by defence that accused did not receive any demand notice. No plea is taken and no suggestion is given as to the fact that accused paid money to complainant after receipt of demand notice. Therefore, considering all this aspect, it can be said that the accused even after receipt of the notice of the complaint, did not return the money and did not make arrangement of sufficient fund in his account to make the transaction good and to honour the cheque - issue decided in favor of complainant. Whether the accused Sri Dipankar Majumder on 08.06.2015 issued the cheque No.445340 in for ₹ 3,00,000/- in favour of complainant in discharge of his debt and liability? - HELD THAT:- The trial court found that the complainant Shri Apu Ranjan Debnath has been able to prove the fact the accused Sri Dipankar Majumder issued the questioned cheque in favour of complainant for an amount of ₹ 3,00,000/- to indemnify his debts and liability - issue decided in affirmative and in favour of complainant but against the accused. Thus, this court is of the view that the basic ingredients which are required for transaction is not disputed. It has been well established fact that there was good acquaintance between the petitioner and the respondent No.1 prior to the transaction took place. Neither there is any dispute relating to the issuing of demand notice by the petitioner to the respondent No.1 - the instant criminal revision liable to be allowed. Revision allowed.
|