9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 96X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,00,000/-. It is stated that out of Rs. 6,00,000/-, a sum of Rs. 4,90,000/- was given through RTGS and Rs. 1,10,000/- was given in cash. d) It is stated that in discharge of his liability towards the complainant, the petitioner issued a cheque bearing No.001650 dated 25.03.2021 for a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- drawn on the Central Bank of India, Badarpur, New Delhi in favour of the complainant/respondent. e) It is stated that, subsequently, the said cheque was presented by the complainant for encashment with HDFC Bank Ltd., Meera Bagh, New Delhi. It is stated that the said cheque was returned unpaid with a remark "Exceeds Arrangement" vide cheque returning memo dated 12.04.2021. It is stated that, thereafter, a legal notice was issued to the petitioner on 05.05.2021, calling upon the petitioner to pay the amount of Rs. 15,00,000/-, and it was stated that on failing to pay the said amount, legal proceedings will be instituted against the petitioner. The notice was duly served on the petitioner, however, the payment was not made by the petitioner. On 11.06.2021, the Complaint Case bearing No.1740/2021 for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was registere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... HI IN HER ACCOUNT UPI TRANSFER CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA 3063349264 20,000/- 09.08.2020 MEENU SONDHI IN HER ACCOUNT UPI TRANSFER CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA 3063349264 20,000/- 21.09.2020 MEENU SONDHI IN HER ACCOUNT UPI TRANSFER CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA 3063349264 20,000/- 15.10.2020 MEENU SONDHI IN HER ACCOUNT UPI TRANSFER CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA 3063349264 20,000/- 22.10.2020 MEENU SONDHI IN HER ACCOUNT UPI TRANSFER CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA 3063349264 20,000/- 19.01.2021 MEENU SONDHI IN HER ACCOUNT UPI TRANSFER CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA 3063349264 20,000/- 19.02.2021 MEENU SONDHI IN HER ACCOUNT UPI TRANSFER CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA 3063349264 20,000/- 17.02.2021 MEENU SONDHI IN HER ACCOUNT UPI TRANSFER CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA 3063349264 20,000/- 04.03.2021 MEENU SONDHI IN HER ACCOUNT UPI TRANSFER CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA 3063349264 12,000/- 07.03.2021 MEENU SONDHI IN HER ACCOUNT UPI TRANSFER Total amount revived by the complainant's wife 2,69,000/- 5. Therefore, the contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that after having received Rs. 2,69 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upreme Court in Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 18 SCC 106, has observed as under: "15. So far the question of existence of basic ingredients for drawing of presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act is concerned, apparent it is that the appellant-accused could not deny his signatures on the cheques in question that had been drawn in favour of the complainant on a bank account maintained by the accused for a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs each. The said cheques were presented to the bank concerned within the period of their validity and were returned unpaid for the reason of either the balance being insufficient or the account being closed. All the basic ingredients of Section 138 as also of Sections 118 and 139 are apparent on the face of the record. The trial court had also consciously taken note of these facts and had drawn the requisite presumption. Therefore, it is required to be presumed that the cheques in question were drawn for consideration and the holder of the cheques i.e. the complainant received the same in discharge of an existing debt. The onus, therefore, shifts on the appellant-accused to establish a probable defence so as to rebut such a pres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... art from adducing direct evidence to prove that the note in question was not supported by consideration or that he had not incurred any debt or liability, the accused may also rely upon circumstantial evidence and if the circumstances so relied upon are compelling, the burden may likewise shift again on to the complainant. The accused may also rely upon presumptions of fact, for instance, those mentioned in Section 114 of the Evidence Act to rebut the presumptions arising under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act. 21. The accused has also an option to prove the non-existence of consideration and debt or liability either by letting in evidence or in some clear and exceptional cases, from the case set out by the complainant, that is, the averments in the complaint, the case set out in the statutory notice and evidence adduced by the complainant during the trial. Once such rebuttal evidence is adduced and accepted by the court, having regard to all the circumstances of the case and the preponderance of probabilities, the evidential burden shifts back to the complainant and, therefore, the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act will not again come to the complainant's res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
