9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 467X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Sessions Judge's Court by its order dated 04.07.2019, dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court dated 03.01.2019, in C.C. No. 127/2017. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the accused has preferred this revision petition. 3. The summary of the case of the complainant in the trial Court was that the accused being his family friend, had obtained hand loan of Rs. 6 lakhs from him on 09.10.2014 to meet her urgent family necessities with an assurance to repay the same within a period of one and half years. After completion of the said period of one and half years and on several request and demands made by the complainant, the accused issued three cheques bearing No. 479382, for a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs, bearing No. 479383, for a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs and bearing No. 368518, for a sum of Rs. 1 lakh, all dated 07.05.2016 and drawn on Corporation Bank, RBI Layout Branch, J.P. Nagar, Bengaluru, in favour of the complainant. When the cheques were presented for their realisation, the same came to be returned dishonoured with the Banker's shara as "payment stopped" by the drawer. It is thereafter, he sent a legal notice to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... transferred to the bank account of the accused through RTGS. The same has been admitted in the cross-examination of DW-1. It is also not in dispute that accused is the drawer of the cheques at Exs.P-1 to P-3, totally amounting to a sum of Rs. 6 lakhs and those cheques were issued by the accused towards the repayment of the loan availed by her from the complainant. The accused as DW-1 has made an admission in that regard in her cross-examination. It is not in dispute that those cheques when presented for realisation by the complainant, came to be returned dishonoured with the Banker's shara "payment stopped" by the drawer as evidenced in Banker's endorsements at Exs.P-4 to P-9. It is also an admitted fact that after dishonour of the cheques, the complainant got issued a legal notice to the accused as per Ex.P-10 demanding the payment of cheque amount, however, the accused did not meet the demand made in the notice, but, sent a reply as per Ex.P-13. These undisputed, rather, admitted facts forms a presumption in favour of the complainant under Section 139 of N.I. Act about the existence of legally enforceable debt, however, the said presumption is rebuttable. 11. In order to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... neighbour, she had availed loan from the complainant, who was introduced to her as a financier. The witness has further stated that after she shifting her residence to a different address at J.P. Nagar VII Phase, there were monetary transactions between herself and the complainant. DW-1 herself in her examination-in-chief has stated that on several occasions, she has availed loan from the complainant and has returned them. In that regard, she has produced her Bank Passbook and marked it as Ex.D-1. She has also stated that she has credited some amount to the account of the complainant to his Canara Bank account, in which regard, she has produced three Bank challans at Exs.D-2 to D-4. The said evidence of none else than the accused herself, that too, in her examination-in-chief, itself would go to show that there were several loan transactions between the complainant and the accused, wherein, the accused was always a loanee and had availed several loans from the complainant. This corroborates the undenied evidence of PW-1 in his cross-examination that the five alleged payments of amount between 26.05.2015 to 28.07.2015, in total amounting to a sum of Rs. 1,40,000/-, are not towards t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that under different installments, in total, a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- has been paid to the complainant, as such, there is no legally enforceable debt to the quantum as claimed by the complainant. The said argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is not acceptable for the reason that, admittedly except marking the said document at Ex.D-6, no where the accused as DW-1 has stated as to what the said document denotes. The said document which is in the form of bank account extract of the accused with Corporation Bank, RBI Layout, J.P. Nagar, Bengaluru, runs into several pages with large number of debit and credit entries therein. By looking at the entries mentioned therein showing several withdrawals, payments, credits etc., it cannot be deduced that any particular sum, on any particular day, was made to the complainant by the accused. Merely by looking at the name of the complainant in those statements, it cannot be inferred that those are the payments made by the accused to the complainant and complainant alone, that too, towards the alleged repayment of the loan transaction in question. Furthermore, admittedly the said document was not confronted to PW-1 in his cross-examination ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
