TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 763X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccording to respondent no. 2 he had never taken such loan from the complainant. The learned trial Judge has suspected the case of the complainant on the ground that the complainant has failed to adduce any evidence that he had any transaction with the respondent no. 2 after 2012. Learned trial court also held that the complainant has failed to establish that he had enforceable debt to the respondent no. 2. The learned trial court also disbelieved the case of the complainant on the ground that the complainant has suppressed the written declaration without any explanation, which was the best evidence to substantiate the exact date and time as well as the quantum of loan, the respondent no. 2 had borrowed from the complainant. There are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the complaint that the respondent no. 2, herein, requested the complainant on 20.05.2018 to provide him a sum of ₹ 2 lakh only as loan. Initially, the complainant was little bit hesitant, but, later on, on further request from the part of respondent no.2, he paid ₹ 2 lakh to him. The respondent no. 2 assured the complainant that he would return the said amount of money to him within two months from that date. It is the further plea of the complainant that the respondent no. 2 also has given a written declaration on a stamp paper of ₹ 10/- (rupees ten) only stating that he would return the amount of ₹ 2 lakh only within two months from the date i.e. from 20.05.2018 in presence of one Sri Ranjan Dutta of Bodarmokam, U ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of evidences, the respondent-accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C where he denied all the allegations levelled against him and claimed that those statements were false. Thereafter, having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties, the learned trial court held that the complainant has failed to establish the fact that he had any enforceable debt to the respondent no. 2, and accordingly, dismissed the complaint acquitting the respondent no. 2. Being aggrieved, the complainant has preferred the instant appeal before this court. 5. Mr. J. Debbarma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the learned trial court erroneously held that the complainant had no enforceable debt to the respondent no. 2. Mr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act as well as under Section 139 of the said Act. According to Mr. Acharjee, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2, in the instant case, the accused-respondent no. 2 has successfully rebutted the evidence let in by the complainant that the complainant had an enforceable debt to the accused-respondent no. 2. Mr. Acharjee, learned counsel has drawn my attention to the fact that, there is one common fact in the instant case as regards that both the complainant and the respondent no. 2 have deposed that at the time of giving the cheque there was a written declaration given by the respondent no. 2 on a stamp paper of ₹ 10/-. Only distinction is that the complainant has said that such written declaration was given by the respondent no. 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e drawn against such a party inspite of the fact that the onus of proof may not lie on. The Hon ble Apex Court re-iterated this in the case of Ritesh Chakarvati versus State of MP reported in (2006) 12 SCC 321. Also, in the case of Vijoy Kumar versus Laxman and others reported in (2013) 3 SCC 86, the Hon ble Apex Court has had drawn adverse inference against the prosecution, due to non-examination of a vital witness by the prosecution and has upheld the acquittal of the respondent . 8. I concur with the opinion of the learned trial judge that oral evidence can be manufactured and that is why if a transaction is created in writing, then, the written document must be produced. I have also taken note of the fact that the respondent no. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|