9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (3) TMI 1099X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erred to as the N.I. Act for short). 2. Though this matter is listed today for admission it is taken for final disposal-by consent of the learned Counsel for both the sides and their arguments on merits are heard, I have perused the impugned judgment and the entire material obtained from the Trial Court. 3. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties the only point that arises for my determination in this appeal is: Whether the Trial Court was justified in acquitting the accused in the said case (respondent herein) of the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act by recording its finding that the complainant failed to prove that legally enforceable debt payable to her by the accused was existing as on the date of the cheque in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he (complainant) demanded the accused repayment of the said amount of Rs. 50,000/-, he issued the cheque in question for the said amount and the same cheque, on being presented to the Bank, came to be bounced. 7. Thus it is the specific case of the complainant in her complaint that it was she who lent the said amount to the accused and who received the cheque in question from the accused towards repayment of the said amount. But she has stated in her evidence that the accused had requested her husband to lend him some money and therefore, her husband had lent the said amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the accused and that she did not have any transaction directly with the accused in respect of the lending of the said amount to him. Thus, it is c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the complainant, presumption can be raised that the said cheque was issued by the accused towards discharge of whole or in part of any debt or other liability. When the very factum of delivery of the cheque in question by the accused to the complainant and its receipt by the complainant from the accused itself is seriously disputed by the accused, his admission in his evidence that the cheque in question bears his signature would not be sufficient proof of the fact that he delivered the said cheque to the complainant and the latter 'received it from the former' so as to raise the presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act. 10. Besides this, as observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishna Janardhan Bhat v. Dattat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
