9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 822X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble with the 2nd respondent also giving scope to the presumption that the appellant made the fixed deposit of ₹ 70,000/- out of the cash arranged by 2nd respondent. There is also no justifiable reason shown by the appellant to deem that the fixed deposit was made out of any other source. An argument was, however, advanced on behalf of the appellant that even if the cheque in question was issued by the 2nd respondent for settling the disputes between the appellant and M.M. Basheer, the 2nd respondent would be still binding under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. On this aspect, we observe that the material on record explicitly shows that the disputes between the appellant and M.M. Basheer were not settled amicably in terms of agreement (Ext ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was dishonoured by the bank with an endorsement insufficient funds . 3. The trial Court, after appreciation of evidence, dismissed the complaint observing that the appellant/ complainant could not establish the charge against 2nd respondent under Section 138 of the N.I. Act as he has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the 2nd respondent had borrowed ₹ 2,25,000/- from him. 4. Aggrieved by the dismissal of complaint by the trial Court, the appellant approached the High Court in Criminal Appeal which also came to be dismissed, thereby confirming the judgment of the trial Court. Hence the present appeal. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Courts below have taken erroneous view of the facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 00/- to the appellant, as he stood as a gurantor for M.M. Basheer. But, subsequently as the other conditions of the agreement were not fulfilled and the disputes were not settled as agreed between the appellant/complainant and M.M. Basheer, there was no legally enforceable debt or liability on the 2nd respondent. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. We find that the 2nd respondent in his deposition categorically stated that to satisfy the terms of agreement (Ext.D2), on 7.9.2000 he had arranged to the appellant ₹ 75,000/- in cash and a cheque for ₹ 2,25,000/-. It is on record that the appellant/complainant himself admitted in the cross examination that till 6.9.2000 the balance in his bank ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
