9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 85X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ited under law. For the said reason, as the cheque drawn was not in support of any debt or liability, the same cannot be legally enforceable. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the case be remanded for denovo trial cannot be entertained for the reason of the appellant not making out any grounds to remand the matter for fresh trial. There is no illegality either procedural or otherwise committed by the learned Magistrate to remand the matter back for fresh trial as urged by the appellant/complainant. Appeal dismissed. - Criminal Appeal No. 169 OF 2020 - - - Dated:- 29-6-2022 - THE HON BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER FOR THE APPELLANT : GOPALA KRISHNA KALANIDHI FOR THE RESPONDENTS : PONNAM MAHESH BABU ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to an unlawful agreement, presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, cannot be raised, for which reason, the accused was acquitted. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that irrespective of the reason for which cheque is drawn, once the said cheque is dishonoured on presentation, the court has no other option but to raise a presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial Court committed grave error in getting into the reasons for which the amount was given as it is not necessary to go into the reasons as to why the amount was given. Since the ingredients of Section 138 i.e., drawing of cheque and the amount not being sufficient to honour the cheque, are satisfied, co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cused. Then the accused again demanded for further amount for making payment to the Officers. As per the demand, the complainant paid amount to him. In total, lot of amount has been paid to the accused for the purpose of securing job to the son of the complainant. As the accused was not able to secure the job in HAL to the complainant's son, the complainant demanded for repayment of the money. In that context, it is said that on 1.5.2009, the accused issued a cheque bearing No.262871 for a sum of Rs.10 lakhs and on presentation of the said cheque it came to be dishonoured on the ground of 'funds insufficient'. After complying the other provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments, it appears the complaint came to be l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n issued for debt or liability is on the accused, after the initial burden is discharged. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant alternatively submits that the case has to be remanded to the trial Court for the purpose of providing an opportunity to the complainant/appellant to prove his case. 8. The three Judge Bench judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Kuju Colieries Ltd., v. Jharkhand Mines Limited (1974) 2 Supreme Court Cases 533, the Hon ble Supreme Court held that an agreement entered into between the parties for an illegal purpose, the same cannot be recovered. 9. The High Court of Kerala in the case of J.Daniel v. State of Kerala[2005 SCC OnLine Ker 366] held as follows: 8.A reading of the above would sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
