9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 85X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Fitter in Midhani Factory, Hyderabad. The respondent/accused promised to provide said job, but asked the complainant to pay an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- for appointment order. However, even after lapse of one year, the accused failed to provide job as promised and upon insisting, the respondent/accused issued cheque bearing No.656237 dated 16.09.2015 for Rs.3,00,000/-. 3. The said cheque when sent for clearance was returned with an endorsement 'funds insufficient'. The complainant issued legal notice and thereafter filed complaint before the concerned Magistrate Court. The learned Magistrate after completing the examination of the complainant/P.W.1 and marking Exs.P1 to P6, found the accused not guilty for the reason of the understanding b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ails. Further, to draw a presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, there is an initial burden on the complainant to prove that the same is legally enforceable debt. He relied on the judgment of Karnataka High Court in the case of R.Parimala Bai v. Bhaskar Narasimhaiah 2018(4) R.C.R (Criminal), wherein it is held as follows: "19. Now, coming to the factual aspects of this case. It is clear from the complaint averments that it is the case of the complainant that, the complainant has a son by name B. Sharath, the accused and complainant were known to each other since long. The complainant met the accused and in fact the accused had assured to provide a job to his son in HAL factory. In this context, the accused had request ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edure that is required to be followed by the HAL factory for the purpose of selecting any candidate for the purpose of providing any job. Therefore, without examining anything, the complainant himself has entered into a void contract with the accused and paid money as against the public policy for illegal purpose." Under similar circumstances, in the above cited judgment the accused took an amount of Rs.10.00 lakhs for providing a job and when he failed to do so, issued a cheque to return the said amount. The same was dishonoured for the reason of 'funds insufficient'. In the said circumstances, the Court held that the said amount was given towards illegal purpose and in the circumstances, it cannot be said that it is a legally recoverabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntract or promise, which is unlawful or not legally enforceable, would not constitute an offence under Section 138 of the Act." 10. The appellant/complainant himself admits that the cheque was issued for the purpose of securing job in Midhani company which is not by any legal means. In the said circumstances, when the cheque was drawn not for the purpose of securing any debt or liability, but pursuant to an illegal contract of an agreement entered into between the complainant and the accused, it cannot be said that it is a legally enforceable debt and such contracts/agreements are prohibited 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. 11. The arg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
