9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 1238X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le Instruments Act, 1881 was filed by the complainant before the XII Magistrate, Bangalore. The learned Magistrate had, after trial, found the defendant guilty and sentenced her to pay Rs. 5, 55, 000/- and in default of payment of the said amount, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of five months. This order of the learned Magistrate was challenged in the appeal before the Fast Track Court, Bangalore, but the same was dismissed by the Fast Track Court. The defendant preferred a revision of the Fast Track Court's order before the High Court, being Criminal Revision Petition No.263/2011. The case of the complainant is that he is the owner of the Ullas Theatre situated at Yashwantpur, Bangalore, while the defendant is the distrib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by her husband Kuppuswamy. She has disputed taking any loan from the complainant as claimed by him. According to her, she never visited the place of complainant and never borrowed any money. The defendant has claimed that Vijayakumari Films had differences with the complainant in the year 2006, over release of the film "Pokari". The defendant's husband had denied to release the film in the complainant's theatre on the ground that at the time of the release of the said movie, another Kannada movie was being shown there and it could have been a sensitive matter. The defendant's case is that the alleged cheque was given to the complainant in the year 1999 as security against loan of Rs. 5 lakhs taken then. After the defendant pai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed the concurrent finding of the learned Magistrate and learned Sessions Judge. The High Court found that the cheque was actually from the cheque book that was issued prior to 2000 as the cheque leaf itself mentioned the date in printed ink as "__/__/199__". The High Court observed that it is hard to believe that a business transacting party would give a cheque which is of the decade 1990 in relation to the transaction in 2007. The High Court accepted the argument of the defendant that the Complainant used the old cheque due to ill will because of denial of the defendant firm to release the film "Pokari" in his theatre. Further, the High Court noted that the complainant in his statement has deposed that he had withdrawn the amount of Rs. 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that there exists a legally enforceable debt or liability. This is of course in the nature of a rebuttable presumption and it is open to the accused to raise a defence wherein the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability can be contested. However, there can be no doubt that there is an initial presumption which favours the respondent complainant." Therefore, in the present case since the cheque as well as the signature has been accepted by the accused respondent, the presumption under Section 139 would operate. Thus, the burden was on the accused to disprove the cheque or the existence of any legally recoverable debt or liability. To this effect, the accused has come up with a story that the cheque was given to the complainant l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
