9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 1175X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rectness?" is the question involved in this case. 3. The petitioner was the accused and the respondent was the complainant before the trial Court. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to henceforth with their ranks before the trial Court. 4. On 17.07.2009 the complainant presented the cheque - Ex.P1 dated 16.07.2009 for Rs. 2,14,800/- drawn on Canara Bank, Channarayapatna Branch on the account of the accused for realization. Vide memo - Ex.P2 the said cheque was dishonoured with the endorsement "funds insufficient". 5. Thereafter, the complainant issued notice to the accused as per Ex.P3 on 21.07.2009 informing the accused about dishonour of cheque and calling upon the accused to pay the cheque amount. As per Ex.P4, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... complainant. The complainant claimed that the accused for his personal needs borrowed Rs. 2,14,800/- assuring to repay the same within two months and towards discharge of that liability, issued the cheque - Ex.P1. Whereas the accused claimed that his father-in-law Ningegowda had purchased a tractor from one Shivanna. He further claimed that since the said tractor loan was not disbursed by the Bank as security for the payment of the tractor amount, the accused had given the cheque to Ningegowda. 10. The accused further claimed that on Bank disbursing the loan, the tractor amount was cleared, still Ningegowda and the complainant in collusion with each other to make wrongful gain, presented the cheque and have filed the complaint. 11. The Tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the burden shifts to the accused to rebut the said presumption by acceptable evidence. 15. The accused/DW.1 in his cross-examination has uneqivocally admitted that the notice - Ex.P3 was served on him. If Shivanna and the complainant colluded with each other to commit fraud on the accused and presented the cheque which contains huge amount, in the ordinary course at the first instance the accused should have replied Ex.P3 denying the contents or his liability. Thereby, there was a deemed admission of the contents of the notice. That circumstance went against the accused. 16. Either by way of reply to the notice or in the cross-examination of PW.1, there was no denial of lending capacity of the complainant. Even in the evidence of the acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
