9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 475X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. Even though the alleged 'stop payment' instruction is shown to have been given on 22.06.2012, it cannot be ignored of the fact that the cheques in question are dated 22.01.2013 which means that they have been drawn subsequent to the alleged 'stop payment' instruction. Even though the accused has also stated that he had filed a police complaint against the complainant on 07.06.2012 but admittedly the police, except issuing an endorsement in form 76A as can be seen at Ex.D3 have not filed any charge-sheet against the complainant. Further the accused has produced a copy of the application said to have been filed by him for housing loan and also statement of account at Exs.D4 and D7 respectively. But they also do not prove that the alleged balance amount of ₹ 7,00,000/- has been paid by the accused to the complainant in cash. Thus the attempt made by the accused to show that he has cleared the alleged outstanding liability of ₹ 7,00,000/- to the complainant by paying the said amount in cash could not be established by him. As such, the presumption that was formed in favour of the complainant becomes crystallised and accused could not succeed in rebutti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the accused since failed to pay the cheques' amount, the complainant was constrained to file a case against him in the Trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Since the accused pleaded not guilty, the trial was held wherein the complainant got himself examined as PW-1 and got marked documents from Exs.P1 to P16. The accused did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence on his behalf. The Trial Court, after hearing arguments from both side and considering the material on record, by its impugned Judgment of conviction and Order on sentence dated 23.09.2015, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced him accordingly. 3. Aggrieved by the Judgment of the Trial Court, the accused preferred an appeal in the LVII Addl. City Civil Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Sessions Judge's Court') in Crl.A. No. 25136/2015, which Court, by Judgment dated 05.05.2016 while confirming the Judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court, dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the accused has preferred this revision petition. 4. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accused had approached the complainant for a hand loan of ₹ 15,00,000/- for the performance of the marriage of his daughter. However, at that time the complainant had taken eleven blank cheques from the accused out of which three cheques bearing Nos. 601590, 601591 and 601592 were duly signed by the accused. He has also stated that a sum of ₹ 8,00,000/- was returned through cheque which was encashed by the complainant. Remaining ₹ 7,00,000/-has been paid to the complainant by the accused after mortgaging his house. However, though the entire loan was repaid, the complainant failed to return the cheques and has misused the same by presenting them to the bank. Learned counsel further submitted that the accused by leading evidence as D.W.1 has reiterated his defence. As such, there is no liability of the accused towards the complainant. He further submitted that the sentence ordered is also on the higher side i.e. when the cheque amount is only ₹ 7,00,000/- the compensation ordered is ₹ 10,00,000/- which is exorbitant. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent in his arguments submitted that the alleged repayment of the loan in its entirety is a false con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etter by his banker of Bank of Maharashtra, Basavanagudi Branch, Bengaluru dated 23.06.2015 which shows that the accused as its account holder has given instructions of stop payment with respect to certain cheques of 22.06.2012 which include the cheque for ₹ 5,00,000/- at Ex.P2. It is relying upon this document the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when there is 'stop payment' instruction given by the accused it shows that there was no liability of the accused towards the complainant. The said argument is not acceptable for the reason that merely because a 'stop payment' instruction is given, it does not infer any meaning that the liability under cheque has already been met with by the drawer of the instrument or that the instrument was not drawn or not issued by the alleged drawer. Even though the alleged 'stop payment' instruction is shown to have been given on 22.06.2012, it cannot be ignored of the fact that the cheques in question are dated 22.01.2013 which means that they have been drawn subsequent to the alleged 'stop payment' instruction. Even though the accused has also stated that he had filed a police complaint against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
