9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 924X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t.-8) and this court has reason to question the very integrity in execution of the said document. Moreover, there is overwriting in mentioning the date of execution of the said document. Initially, it appears to be written as 10.05.2016 , but, later on, by way of overwriting, it appears to be written as 18.05.2016 - These inconsistencies as are surfaced in the said declaration i.e. Exhibit 8 have led this court to draw adverse inference against the genuinity of the execution of the said document (Exbt.- 8). Moreover, the scribe in his cross-examination has stated that he did not identify anybody who signed this document (Exbt.- 8). That apart, most interestingly, the complainant deposing as PW 1, in his cross-examination, has stated that I do not know whether I have submitted written document or any agreement . In the instant case, though the respondent no. 1 has not adduced any evidence, but, he has been able to rebut the initial presumption that he had issued the cheque in discharge of his liability to repay his debt to the complainant. Moreso, learned trial court has acquitted the accused, the respondent no. 1 herein, and on such acquittal there is double presumption of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icient since the accused failed to provide sufficient funds in his account being No. 0263010123464. The matter of dishonor of cheque was informed by the banker of the complainant on 23.08.2017 through a written communication. On 31.08.2017 complainant sent a lawyer s notice to the accused Runu Debbarma, but, the accused did not communicate or pay the said loan amount to the complainant. Then, the complainant filed a criminal complaint against the accused under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. ii. The accused appeared before the court on 13.03.2018 after receiving summons from the court and he was examined under section 251 of Cr.P.C. by this court on 27.04.2018 wherein he pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried. iii. During trial, the complainant, in support of his case examined himself as P.W. 1, Shri Narayan Bhattacharjee as PW 2, Sri Dipak Modak as PW 3 and Sri Ahmed Ali Afrad as PW 4 and exhibited the following documents:- a. Exhibit-1:- Check bearing No. 718883, dated 04.08.2017 issued by Runu Debbarma in favour of the complainant. b. Exhibit-2:- Pay slip of S.B.I. c. Exhibit-3:- Return memo dated 23.08.2017 issued by the U.B.I, Khowai. N.I. 13 of 2017. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , has stated that at the time of taking the loan the accused put a condition that after three months from the date as per the demand of the complainant, the accused would be bound to repay the said entire loan. However, on frequent demand, the respondent ultimately, had issued a cheque being no. 718883, dated 04.08.2017 in liquidation of his liability to the complainant for ₹ 2 lakhs on U.B.I, Khowai Branch in presence of witnesses. The complainant deposited the said cheque in his bank i.e. S.B.I, Khowai Branch in his account bearing no. 30706667243 for collection of the said amount from the concerned bank of the respondent no. 1, but, it was intimated that the cheque was returned/dishonored on account of insufficiency of fund in the account of the respondent. Mr. Lodh, learned counsel has further submitted that, thereafter, the complainant maintained all legal formalities, and lastly, due to the failure of repayment of the sum of ₹ 2 lakhs, the complainant had filed the instant complaint. Mr. Lodh, learned counsel has also submitted that the respondent did not deny his signature in the cheque, which is sufficient to establish the fact that the respondent had issued t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o know from the notice served upon him by Sri Sushil Chandra Paul that he issued a cheque to Sri Sushil Chandra Paul for recovery of ₹ 2 lakhs out of his debt, and thereafter, he lodged a complaint case against Sri Sushil Chandra Paul and Sri Narayan Bhattacharjee under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khowai Judicial District, Khowai, Tripura. Learned counsel for the appellant has eloquently submitted that both Sri Sushil Chandra Paul and Narayan Bhattacharjee were in connivance with each other to lodge the instant complaint against the respondent. 9. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsels appearing for the parties as well as I have perused the documents introduced by the parties in support of their respective pleas. 10. It is settled proposition of law that in a case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, the complainant gets the benefit of presumption under Section 118-A and 139 of the N.I Act, but, it does not mean that undue benefit will be given to the complainant. It is also equally settled that a complainant in a case under Section 138 of the N.I Act has to establish his case beyond reas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... very integrity in execution of the said document. Moreover, there is overwriting in mentioning the date of execution of the said document. Initially, it appears to be written as 10.05.2016 , but, later on, by way of overwriting, it appears to be written as 18.05.2016 . 13. These inconsistencies as are surfaced in the said declaration i.e. Exhibit 8 have led this court to draw adverse inference against the genuinity of the execution of the said document (Exbt.- 8). Moreover, the scribe in his cross-examination has stated that he did not identify anybody who signed this document (Exbt.- 8). That apart, most interestingly, the complainant deposing as PW 1, in his cross-examination, has stated that I do not know whether I have submitted written document or any agreement . It transpires that the complainant and the respondent no. 1 had a friendly relationship, but, being confronted with cross-examination, the complainant as PW 1 stated that he had no idea about the family members of the respondent no. 1, and furthermore, he had no idea about the house of the respondent no. 1 where he resides. I have also scrutinized about the fact as to who purchased the stamp but it is not clear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
