9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1189X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was fixed for defence evidence. The necessary facts for the disposal of present revision are that the respondent/complainant has filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act on the allegation that the applicant had got certain electrification work done from the respondent and a cheque of Rs. 25,00,000/- was issued by the applicant, which was returned back by the Bank on the ground of insufficient fund. After issuing notice to the applicant, the respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. It appears that after the evidence of the respondent/ complainant was over the case was fixed for defence evidence and near abut 9 months thereafter the applicant filed an application under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... k, if any. 12) Invoices details of other items purchased on behalf of owners of Dream City for external electrification work, if any. 13) Ledger/cash book in respect of above contract." The said application was rejected on the ground that the application has been filed belatedly after about 9 months from the date when the case was fixed for defence evidence. Challenging the order passed by the Magistrate, the counsel for the applicant submitted that to rebut the legal presumption with regard to the legal liability, the documents sought to be summoned by the applicant under Section 91, Cr.P.C are necessary. The cheque in question was issued by way of security. The applicant has no legal liability to pay the cheque amount. Per contra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the counsel for the applicant that in fact the applicant has already repaid the amount to the complainant and in fact the complainant has misused the cheque by presenting the same before the Bank. If the applicant has already repaid the amount then he must be having the receipt of the payment. The applicant can also prove the above mentioned fact from his own income tax return and books of accounts. The documents which are sought to be summoned from the complainant cannot be said to be necessary for the disposal of the case. The burden is on the applicant to rebut the presumption as provided under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Furthermore, the complainant has closed his evidence and case was fixed for recording of defence e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
