9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 924X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e complainant Sri Sushil Paul in presence of witnesses as he need money for the treatment of his wife outside state on the condition that shortly he would make the payment of the credit since he would avail a loan from bank. At the time of taking the loan the accused put a condition that after three months from the date as per demand of the complainant, the accused would be bound to repay the said entire loan. After elapse of the said three months the accused did not make payment of the loan to the complainant. On 04.08.2017 the accused had issued a cheque No. 718883 to the complainant for Rs. 2,00,000/- drawn on United Bank of India, Khowai Branch in presence of witnesses. Subsequently, the complainant deposited the said cheque in his banker State Bank of India, Khowai Branch in his account being No. 30706667243 for collection of the said amount from the concerned bank. But the cheque had been returned to the complainant with the endorsements "Fund insufficient" 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case. It is settled that unless contrary is proved, it shall be presumed that the accused issued the cheque in discharge of his liability in whole or in part of any debt to the holder of the cheque. The burden is on the accused to rebut the presumption. It is to be seen, in the instant case, as to whether the accused has been able to rebut the presumption which initially is in favour of the appellant-complainant. 7. Mr. Lodh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-complainant has argued that the respondent no. 1, Sri Runu Debbarma had taken a loan of Rs. 2 lakhs from the appellant for treatment of his wife. The appellant had paid the said sum of Rs. 2 lakhs to the respondent no. 1 on a condition that he would shortly make the repayment of the said amount by way of availing loan from his banker. At para 2 of the complaint, the appellant (herein after referred to as the complainant), 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te a rent agreement, the respondent handed over some blank semi papers to said Narayan Bhattacharjee, who was an agent of 'Sahara Company' and was requesting the respondent to invest in 'Sahara Company', but, the respondent could not invest any sum of money with 'Sahara Company' as per request of said Narayan Bhattacharjee. It is further submitted that, Sri Sushil Chandra Paul had invested some money in the said 'Sahara Company' at the request of said Narayan Bhattacharjee. According to Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the respondent, said Narayan Bhattacharjee later on informed the respondent that there was no vacant premise in the house of Sri Sushil Chandra Paul to give on rent. Thereafter, the respondent demanded return of those semi-papers carrying his signatures, but, Narayan Bhattacharjee told him that he lost those semi-papers. Thereafter, the respondent came to 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 Rs. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cument I re-iterate that it is clear that it is not an agreement, but, it is a kind of 'declaration'/ 'promisory note' given by the respondent. It is further noticed that though the document was introduced in course of the evidence, surprisingly, there is no whisper in the complaint as regards the existence of the said declaration. There is no signature of the respondent at the bottom of the said declaration. The signature of the complainant as well as the scribe of the said document appeared to be signed and written by the same ink and pen, but, the signature of the respondent no. 1 appears to be of different ink and pen. Though, it is not mandatory that the signature of the writer has to be of the same ink, but, in the context of the case, these circumstances have led this court to suspect the said document (Exbt.-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'. 13. These inconsistencies as are surfaced in the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
