9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 1645X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was no such transaction whatsoever. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class had therefore, rightly concluded that the respondent had successfully rebutted the presumption under Section 139 of the Act and that the appellant/complainant had failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. The complainant had failed to lead any evidence to prove the signature of the respondent on the said document nor had the complainant got the signature examined through a handwriting expert. In the face of all these observations, the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class therefore, categorically held and rightly so that the respondent was not guilty and acquitted him of the commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mplainant that there was a legally enforceable debt in their favour and on account of the dishonour of the cheque, the appellants were entitled to a judgment of conviction in their favour. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class failed to come to the conclusion that the respondent no. 1 was successful in rebutting the presumption under Section 139 of the Act. The learned Trial Court ought to have considered that the respondent no. 1 was the manager of the appellant at the time of the loan application and there could not have been any manipulation in the loan application. The impugned judgment was liable for interference on such and similar grounds taken in the appeal memo and therefore, the appeal had to be allowed. 3. Heard Shri S. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s probable. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class had held that in order to rebut the presumption in favour of the appellant/complainant, the respondent was required to prove his defence which was probable and for which he had examined himself in defence. He had clearly stated that one Sachin Patkar who was his cousin had come to his house and told him that there was a problem at his work place and as his job security had required some cheques, he had taken his full cheque book and photographs and he had given the cheques which were signed though they were blank. 6. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class had also considered the fact that the respondent had never applied for the loan from the complainant/appellant much less s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to sanction the loan was even prior to the application for loan which improbabilised the case of the complainant or rather probabilised the case in defence that there was no such transaction whatsoever. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class had therefore, rightly concluded that the respondent had successfully rebutted the presumption under Section 139 of the Act and that the appellant/complainant had failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. The complainant had failed to lead any evidence to prove the signature of the respondent on the said document nor had the complainant got the signature examined through a handwriting expert. In the face of all these observations, the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
