9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 863X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itted that he has advanced the loan without obtaining any document. The evidence of P.W. 1 itself disclose that his monthly income is ₹ 5,000/- to ₹ 6,000/-. Further, in his cross-examination, he claimed he had withdrawn the amount from the bank and paid it to the accused. But to substantiate the said contention that he has bank account and was having balance of more than ₹ 2,00,000/- as on that particular date, no documents have been produced by the complainant - Admittedly, the accused is neither a friend nor relative of the complainant. Hence, the financial status of the complainant itself is in doubt and as such, the accused has created a dent in the case of the complainant. Considering these facts and circumstances ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for allowing the appeal by convicting the respondent/accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred with the original ranks occupied by them before the trial court. 3. Brief factual matrix leading to the case are that, the complainant is acquainted with the accused and considering the demand and legal necessity, the complainant has advanced hand loan of ₹ 2,00,000/- to the accused and the accused assured to repay the same within a short period. Towards discharge of the said hand loan, the accused issued a cheque dated 12.08.2009 for ₹ 2,00,000/- in favour of the complainant. When the said cheque was presented, it was bounc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant/complainant and learned counsel for the respondent/accused. Trial court records are secured and I have perused them in detail. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court is illegal and perverse and there is no proper appreciation of the evidence by the trial court. He would further contend that the trial court ought to have drawn inference in favour of the complainant in view of the presumption available under Section 139 of N.I. Act. He further submits that the trial court has failed to consider the fact that accused has admitted money transaction between the accused and the complainant for ₹ 10,000/- and ought to have held that there was transaction between the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the case of the complainant, he has advanced loan of ₹ 2,00,000/- to the accused and the accused has promised to repay the loan amount in short time. It is alleged that in discharge of loan, Ex. P1 cheque dated 12.08.2009 was issued. There is no dispute of the fact that cheque belongs to the accused. The accused has also not disputed his signature on the cheque. However, the accused has taken a defence that in 2005 itself he has availed loan of ₹ 10,000/- from the complainant and repaid the same in installments and as a security, he had issued the cheque by executing a demand promissory note. He placed reliance on the copy of the demand promissory note as per Ex. D1. In view of the fact that accused has admitted his signature ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... regard. His cross-examination further reveals that from his business, for last six years he could get profit and continuous four years he sustained loss. This itself expose his financial status. The monthly income derived by the complainant is only sufficient to maintain his family. Further, ₹ 2,00,000/- is a huge amount and he advanced loan to a person with whom he had no close acquaintance and that too without there being any security, is a million dollar question. Admittedly, the accused is neither a friend nor relative of the complainant. Hence, the financial status of the complainant itself is in doubt and as such, the accused has created a dent in the case of the complainant. 10. Apart from that, he has also produced Ex. D1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
