9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 1349X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... maintained by him was ₹ 5,25,000/-. Though the complainant has stated that he has maintained the ledger, he has failed to produce the same before the trial Court. The defence taken by the accused that the cheque in question was received by the complainant as a security appears probable. The complainant has failed to prove that the accused was due a sum of ₹ 5,25,000/- as on 24.05.2006. From the evidence on record it cannot be said that Ex. P1-cheque was issued by the accused in discharge of a legally recoverable debt - the complainant has failed to prove the cheque-Ex. P1 was issued by the accused towards discharge of his outstanding dues. The reasons assigned by the trial Court cannot be said to be either perverse or illeg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rds payment of the said debt, the accused issued a cheque bearing No. 0222 dated 24.05.2006, for a sum of ₹ 5,25,000/-, drawn on Jilla Valmiki Girijana Pattina Sahakara Sangha Ltd., Davanagere through account No. 125 and requested the complainant to present the cheque for encashment. Accordingly, when the said cheque was presented for encashment by the complainant through his collecting banker, Bapuji Co-operative Bank Ltd., HMR Branch, Davanagere on 24.05.2006, the said cheque was returned with an endorsement Insufficient Fund . A legal notice dated 05.06.2006 was issued to the accused under certificate of posting and also by registered post with acknowledgment due. However, the accused failed to reply to the notice and failed to pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ends that the accused has not disputed the issuance of cheque and also the signature on Ex. P1. However there was no outstanding dues of ₹ 5,25,000/- as alleged by the complainant. Though the accused was borrowing about ₹ 30,000/- from the complainant once in every six months for the purpose of purchasing pesticides, seeds and manure etc., for agricultural operations, the accused was clearing the said loan by selling the paddy crops. In the year 1992 due to flood in the Thungabhadra river, the crop cultivated by the accused was destroyed. Hence, he could not clear the loan borrowed from the complainant during that time and he was due only a sum of ₹ 24,800/- to the complainant. In this regard, the complainant persuaded the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nant was a former Director and he succeeded in opening a savings bank account in the name of accused and thereafter took the signed blank cheque promising that he will keep the said cheque for the purpose of security. 10. The complainant has disputed the defence taken by the accused. However, as noted supra it is the specific case of the complainant that the accused was due a sum of ₹ 5,25,000/- as per the ledger balance dated 24.05.2006. To show that as on the said date the outstanding amount was ₹ 5,25,000/-, complainant has not produced any document. It is not the case of the complainant that the accused borrowed a sum of ₹ 5,25,000/-. On the other hand it is his case that over a period of time, the accused borrowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
