9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 146X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is alleged that the complainant and the accused are close friends having business network and the complainant hails from the reputed agricultural and business family networks. In the month of November 2010, the accused approached the complainant for hand loan for Rs. 1,50,000/- to get out from his personal financial risks and the complainant has given the same to the accused. Thereafter, the accused showed ignorance and hostile attitude towards the complainant. When the complainant demanded for the said amount, the accused issued a cheque bearing No. 644720 dated 03.01.2011 of Vijaya Bank, Doddaballapura Branch and when it was presented for realization at Karur Vysya Bank, Doddaballapura Branch, it got dishonored for the reason "insufficient funds" on 05.01.2011. The complainant got issued legal notice dated 11.01.2011 through R.P.A.D. But the accused failed to repay the amount. Hence, he has filed a complaint. 5. After taking cognizance, the accused appeared before the trial Court and pleaded not guilty and to prove the case, the complainant examined himself as PW. 1 and got marked 11 documents and accused got examined himself as D.W. 1 and got marked 5 documents. After closing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the accused was not at all residing in the address mentioned in the complaint. He is residing in some other place. In support of his case, he has produced the documents which were accepted by the trial Court as the accused was not residing in the said address and the notice was not served. That apart, the complainant has stated that he is a friend of the accused and the transaction is not proved and no where he has stated that he is having business and has supplied silk material to the accused. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly taken view that the case was not proved. There is no illegality in the judgment in order to reverse the judgment. Hence, prayed for acquitting the accused. 8. Upon hearing the arguments and on perusal of the records, the points that arise for my consideration are: "1. Whether the complainant has proved the case against the accused that he has issued a cheque for discharging his legally liable debt and the cheque was dishonored? 2. Whether the judgment of the trial Court calls for interference?" 9. On perusal of the records, the cheque bearing No. 644720 dated 03.01.2011 belongs to the accused. His signature in the cheque has not been disputed and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent-accused to the address i.e., No. 1132, 19th Cross, Vidya Nagar, Chaithanyanagar, Doddaballapur. Ex. P. 7 is the certificate issued by the Manjunatha Agencies stating the address of R. RaviKumar (the accused) and the gas cylinder delivered to him to the address is correct. The address of the accused is Chaitanyanagar (Vidyanagar), Doddaballapur Taluk, Bangalore Rural District. The gas agency receipt is very important document to show that the accused used to receive the gas cylinder regularly. Though the petitioner is a permanent of some other place, but his local address is in respect of the address provided for delivery of gas cylinder. Even otherwise as per Ex. P. 8 and Ex. P. 11, the post master of the Doddaballapura Sub-Post office issued the certificate that the postal registered letters in respect of the registered post sent by the complainant has been served on the addressee on 18.01.2011. Ex. P. 11 reveals that the delivery was effected and the same was received by Mamatha-wife of the accused. It is not a case where the notice was not received by the wife of the accused Mamatha but some other person. The post master normally issues certificate for having delivered t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act is available in favour of the complainant and the same was not rebutted by the accused except taking contention that the notice has not been served. Therefore, I am of the view that the trial Court has committed error in holding that the complainant has not proved the case against the accused and on the other hand, the complainant has successfully proved the case against the accused in respect of issuance of cheque and the cheque came to be dishonored. In spite of service of notice, the accused has not chosen to return the amount. Hence, the complaint came to be filed. 12. Learned counsel for the accused also contended that the complainant has stated that he is an agriculturist, but, he has not stated that he is running power loom business. But in the cross-examination, the complainant has stated that he is having power loom business and selling raw silk materials. Such being the case, the capacity of the complainant for giving any loan to the accused cannot be doubted. 13. Learned counsel for the accused also taken further contention that the Bank of the complainant has not issued any endorsement regarding dishonor of the ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
