9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (2) TMI 736X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9, 1992. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that Ganesh Flour Mills, Nabha through its sole proprietor Budh Sagar had filed two complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the Act') read with Section 420, 1.P.C. against Jeewan Kumar and Satish Kumar. According to the complainant Jeewan Kumar had issued a cheque for Rs. 30, 900/- on June 18, 1991 drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce, Nabha. The cheque on presentation was dishonoured with the remarks referred to drawer . Notice of dishonour was issued upon the party on June 29, 1981 but payment was not received and hence the complaint was filed. The learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the sum mentioned in the cheque was issued by Jeewan Kumar t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Act there was a presumption that every negotiable instrument had been drawn for consideration. Therefore, from the perusal of evidence it was evident that the amounts were due from the accused to the complainant and the cheques of the accused had been dishonoured which meant that we accused did not have sufficient amount in their accounts of meet the cheques. 6. It is all very well for the appellant-complainant to argue that there was a presumption in his favour but what is not understandable is the failure of the complainant to give even a slight hint of the debt or liability which the party had incurred when the cheque had been issued. Did the appellant supply some goods on credit, did the appellant loan the amount or did he sell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be advanced a loan by the Bank as promised. On July 1, 1991 the accused got the loan cancelled and the Field Officer issued receipt but when the accused asked for return of the signed cheques they were informed that they should come later. The cheques in question were those signed cheques which had been used to file the complaints. There- fore, the case of the accused had been explicitly pleaded in reply to the notice of dishonour. Moreover, this had also been the plea raised by the accused in his statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C. 9. There is a presumption that every negotiable instrument had been drawn for consideration and that the cheque had been issued in discharge of any debt due from him, it becomes the duty of the complainant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
