9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 857X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... how that this amount has been given on interest or not. No pronote or any document was got executed while giving the loan. If the cheques were given in the name of the firm, then it will be treated as that loan was given by the firm. There must be some account of the firm showing payment of this amount to the accused but no such account of the firm has been shown by the complainants. Therefore, the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been rebutted from the complaint as well as the cross-examination of the complainants. Court after discussing the evidence on record, has correctly held that the accused has rebutted the presumption under Section 139 of the Act. The complainants failed to prove that loan was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ea set up by the defence, which is not part of their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., however the trial Court unduly gave weightage to the highly improbable and irrelevant documents produced by accused and totally overlooked the evidence/documents produced by the complainant. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants and have gone through the record. The brief facts of the case are that a complaint was filed by complainants Kuldeep Singh Deol and Kewal Kaur through attorney Harjeet Singh Kalra against accused Prem Malhotra for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is stated that accused had taken friendly loan from complainants and in order to discharge that legal liability, accused issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tradiction whether the friendly loan was given in personal capacity of the complainants or by the complainants' firm. Even as per income tax provisions, such a huge amount cannot be given in cash. There is also nothing on record to show that this amount has been given on interest or not. No pronote or any document was got executed while giving the loan. If the cheques were given in the name of the firm, then it will be treated as that loan was given by the firm. There must be some account of the firm showing payment of this amount to the accused but no such account of the firm has been shown by the complainants. Therefore, the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been rebutted from the complaint as well as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
