9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (10) TMI 605X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o cheques in favour of the appellant herein. The said cheques when presented were dishonoured for want of insufficient funds. As despite service of notice, the respondent did not make any payment, two complaint petitions were filed against him. 4. The question which arose for consideration before the learned Trial Judge and consequently before the Court of Appeal as also the Revisional Court was as to whether the said cheques had been issued towards discharge of any existing debt. 5. Relationship between the parties is not in dispute. The complainant used to run chitties. Respondent was a subscriber to three chitties conducted by the firm of the appellant. In respect of one of the chitties, the bid was held on 7.10.1997 for a sum of Rs. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ties, he took personal loan from him in his personal capacity. 7. Before the learned Trial Judge, the respondent examined two witnesses who proved the aforementioned fact. The learned Trial Judge, in its judgment, took notice of the pendency of the several civil litigations by and between the parties hereto. It, however, proceeded on the basis that as admittedly cheques have been issued by the respondent which on presentation were not honoured, he committed an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short the Act). The said findings of the learned Trial Judge was upheld in appeal by Shri K. Ramakrishnan, learned Additional Sessions Judge by a judgment and order dated 17.03.2004. 8. The High Court, however, in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alyzing the materials brought on records by the parties had arrived at a finding of fact that in view of the conduct of the parties it would not be prudent to hold that the respondent borrowed a huge sum despite the fact that the suits had already been filed against him by the appellant. Presumption raised in terms of Section 139 of the Act is rebuttable. If, upon analysis of the evidence brought on records by the parties, in a fact situation obtaining in the instant case, a finding of fact has been arrived at by the High Court that the cheques had not been issued by the respondent in discharge of any debt, in our opinion, the view of the High Court cannot be said to be perverse warranting interference by us in exercise of our discretionary ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
