9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1198X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Magistrate No.II, (Fast Track Court, Magisterial Level), Coimbatore, is the appellant herein and it is a case filed for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The complaint has been filed on the allegations that the respondent herein has borrowed a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- on 17.07.2012 and agreed to repay the same with interest at 18% p.a. The further case of the complainant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the complainant in the year 2001 and at the time of taking loan, the complainant obtained unfilled promissory note and unfilled signed cheque from him. He has also alleged that dispute has arisen regarding payment of interest and thereafter, the complainant filled in the cheque and promissory note and has filed the present case. According to him, he has not borrowed Rs. 4, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... noured and no objection has been raised by the respondent and no action was taken by him for collection of the amount under Ex.D1 cheque. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the Trial Court on the materials available on record, has reached a reasonable conclusion and the view taken by the Trial Court is a possible view on the evidence and that therefore, there is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is sufficient to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. In order to rebut the presumption, the respondent can rely on the evidence adduced by the complainant. The materials on record would clearly establish that the respondent has raised a probable defence. Once the presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments is rebutted, it is for the complainant to pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had to be made by an account payee cheque only. In the light of the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it can be safely concluded that the complainant has not proved that the cheque in question was issued for the discharge of legally enforceable debt. The appellant has not proved his case for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Trial Court has taken a p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
