Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2018 (10) TMI 1080

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... om the date of receipt of the notice. The revision petitioner, though received the notice on 28.02.2008, neither replied nor paid the cheque amount. 2.Nagarajan filed complaint before the Court, which was taken up on file. The complainant examined himself as PW-1. The cheque, memo, debit advice challan, statutory notice, postal receipt and postal acknowledgment were marked as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-6. 3.The case of the complainant is that he lent Rs. 2,80,000/- to the accused on 20.12.2007. She promised to repay the loan within 2 months and gave post-dated cheque (Ex.P-1). He presented the cheque for collection on 21.02.2018 through his bank. The bank returned the cheque with intimation that funds insufficient. The memo of cheque return issued by .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ant case regarding the exact date and place of issuing the cheque has not been properly considered by the Trial Court. The Trial Court is erred in believing the complainant that he gave hand loan of Rs. 2,80,000/- based on the post dated cheque even without knowing her repaying capacity and background of her family. 8.The first appellate Court pointing the inconsistency in the defence version and failure to prove the cheque was stolen from her, dismissed her appeal drawing presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act. 9.The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner in this revision filed against the concurrent finding of the Courts below submitted that once the signature in the cheque denied by the accused, the complainant ought .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e to deny the lawful enforceable debt, had taken not only inconsistent plea but destructive plea. At one breath she has denied any transaction with the complainant and another breath she admits that she know the complainant, who used to visit her house. She alleges the cheque was stolen from her house, but not lodged any complaint about it. She has denied her signature in the cheque, but did not attempt to prove it. The accused borrowed loan for a short period promising to repay within two months. She borrowed money to meet her urgent family expenses, since her husband was in prison at foreign land. Therefore, the same was given in cash. This fact is being elucidated in the deposition of the complainant. Since the transaction is not being a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rance of probabilities showing that the existence of consideration was improbable, doubtful or illegal. 18.In the present case, the accused has not brought out any fact on record for the Court to believe there was no passing of consideration. The complainant and accused are not strangers. The accused in the cross examination of the complainant by way of suggestion, admits that she knew the complainant and he used to visit the share broker office next to her residence and he used to come to her house. At no point of time before trial or during trial, she has explained the possession of her signed cheque with the complainant. It is also not the case of the accused that the complainant is man of no means. 19.In Rangappa v. Srimohan reported .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e fact and law, the finding of the Courts below does not fall under any of the category to interfere in revision. 21.The learned counsel appearing for the accused/revision petitioner submitted that the revision petitioner was arrested pursuant to the confirmation of the conviction by the first appellate Court. While preferring the revision petition, there was a delay of 502 days and in the meanwhile she was arrested on 01.02.2017. This Court directed her to deposit Rs. 70,000/- being ¼th of cheque amount as pre-condition to condone delay and to grant bail. As per the direction of this Court, the revision petitioner has paid Rs. 70,000/- to the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/ complainant and the learned counsel also re .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates