9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 662X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act that the same is given towards debt or legal liability and the revision petitioner has not disputed issuance of cheque and only his defence is that during the course of transactions blank cheque was collected and in order to prove the said fact, even he did not choose to enter into the witness box and not adduced any rebuttal evidence. During the course of cross-examination of P.W. I also there is no effective cross-examination to rebut the evidence of the complainant. It is settled law that accused can rebut the evidence of complainant by effective cross-examination and also adducing the rebuttal evidence and it is already pointed out that there is no any rebuttal evidence given by the accused and also in the cross-examination of P.W. I, there is no effective cross-examination to rebut the evidence of the complainant. The principles laid down in the judgment of Rangappa's case [ 2010 (5) TMI 391 - SUPREME COURT ] is not applicable to the facts on hand. Since first of all there is no any rebuttal evidence and accused is unable to raise the probable defence which creates doubt about the legally enforceable debt or liability and apart from that, in the very same judgmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a proprietor of Anil Medical Agency, doing the business of wholesale marketing of pharmaceuticals (medicines) at Raichur and the petitioner/accused is the proprietor of M/s. Anil Medical and General Stores at Kottalar, Raichur who is the retailer of the said pharmaceuticals. The accused had transaction with the complainant on various dates during the year April-2007 to July-2008 and had purchased medicines on credit basis from his wholesale agency amounting to ₹ 6,00,000/- and odd. In repayment of the part of the said amount the accused had issued a subject matter cheque dated 24.07.2008 for an amount of ₹ 4,30,527/- When the cheque was presented, the same was returned with shara insufficient funds and thereafter the legal notice was issued and no reply was given and cause of action complaint is filed. The complainant has examined himself as P.W. 1 and got marked documents at Ex. P.1 to P.8. The complainant herein has filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., against the petitioner herein for the offences punishable under Section 138 of NI Act and the trial Court Judge in Criminal Case No. 1091/2009 convicted the accused/petitioner herein and ordered to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsidered by the trial Court as well as appellate Court. Hence, it requires interference of this Court. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that issuance of cheque was admitted and only defence was taken that during the course of transactions, the cheque was collected and the same was misused. In order to substantiate the same, the revision petitioner did not step into the witness box and rebutted the presumption and also the evidence of complainant either in his defence evidence or in the effective cross-examination. Apart from that he has not given any reply when the notice was issued to him and presumption has to be drawn in favour of the complainant and no doubt, it is a rebuttal presumption and the same has not been rebutted by the accused and both the courts have given finding that transactions are not in dispute and admittedly issuance of cheque and no reply was given and also not rebutting the reply of the complainant and hence there are no grounds to interference by exercising the revisional powers regarding legality and correctness of the order passed by both the courts. 7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ril-2007 and July-2008 and as on the date 31.03.2008 balance was ₹ 2,90,604/- and this assessment pertains to the year 2008-09 and hence, it is clear that much amount was pending and the transactions were even continued as contended by the complainant in July-2008 also. The complainant also relied upon the document Ex. P.7 i.e., credit bill register from 01.04.2008 to last transaction 26.09.2008. The learned counsel would vehemently contend that even subsequent to the issuance of cheque also, the bills are produced, even till the month of September-2008. No doubt, this document does not bear the signature as contended by the revision petitioner, but he did not dispute the transactions taken place between the complainant and accused and though cheque is dated 24.07.2008, cheque was presented in the month of November-2008 and bank endorsement is clear that funds insufficient vide intimation dated 21.11.2008 and hence, Ex. P.7 discloses the transaction have taken place even subsequent to the issuance of cheque. Hence, the petitioner cannot find fault with the continuation of the transactions of the accused even for the month of September-2008 also. It is also important to note t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acts on hand. Since first of all there is no any rebuttal evidence and accused is unable to raise the probable defence which creates doubt about the legally enforceable debt or liability and apart from that, in the very same judgment the Hon'ble Apex Court held that not raising a probable defence, the appellant/accused was not able to contest the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability and the legal notice was issued to the revisional petitioner and acknowledging the legal notice, he has not given any rebuttal reply and when such being the circumstances, it is further observed that when the accused not denied signature on the cheque belongs to him the statutory presumption come into play and the same has not been rebutted even with regard to the material submitted by the complainant and hence, this judgment is helping either side i.e., complainant in the case on hand also cheque was admitted and issue of legal notice was admitted and transaction between the revisional petitioner and the respondent is admitted and the revisional petitioner has not led any rebuttal evidence and there is no any effective cross-examination rebutting the evidence of the complainant and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
