9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 515X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld. Vide judgment dated 26.02.2015 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate the petitioner was convicted for offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and vide order on sentence dated 25.03.2015, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay the compensation of Rs. 4 lakhs to the complainant. In default of payment of compensation, the petitioner shall further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. 2. The facts in brief are that a complaint was filed by the complainant/respondent no.2 against the accused/petitioner with the allegations that they were having family relations. The petitioner asked the respondent no.2 for a friendly loan of Rs. 3,45,000/-. The respondent no.2 advanced the loan in two insta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pancies in the testimony of complainant witness. There was no proof that any liability accrued against the petitioner. The petitioner took the loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the husband of the complainant and said loan was duly returned back in April, 2006 in the presence of DW1 Chhattarpal. At the time of advancing loan, Satender had taken 20 blank security cheques and out of those cheques, the cheque in question was misused by the complainant. It was further argued that the complainant in her cross-examination admitted that her husband had given Rs. 1 lacs to her and the said amount was given by the complainant to the petitioner. The complainant did not remember the date of execution of pronote. It was further argued that the petitioner is b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ready paid. The petitioner had not placed any material on record to show that he had ever demanded the cheques including the cheque in question from the husband of the complainant after the alleged repayment of loan. 10. Section 139 of the N.I. Act provides for raising of presumption to the effect that the holder of the cheque has received it in discharge of liability. 11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay v. Laxman and Anr. (2013) 3 SCC 86 has observed that once the cheque has been issued and the signatures thereon has been admitted by the accused, then it is not available to the accused to take the defence that the cheque was not issued by him. Relevant portion reads as under : "Having heard the learned counsels for the conte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
