9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 1214X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... having enough fund with her, for this purpose. According to complainant, even her sisters had raised loan from a society for advancing money to her. It would be difficult to believe that the sisters of the complainant would have incurred liability towards a society, to extend a loan to the complainant, not for her personal need, but for lending that amount to a person who is stranger to them. Moreover, there is no explanation for not producing the aforesaid persons in the witness box. Though the case of the respondent is that the aforesaid diary bears the signature of the appellant/complainant Kajal, there is no evidence to prove the alleged signature of the complainant/appellant on the aforesaid document. In her cross-examination, the complainant/appellant has nowhere admitted that the aforesaid diary bears her signature. She only admitted that it was a diary which belongs to the father of the respondent who was engaged in the business of building material and property dealing. No handwriting expert was examined by the respondent to prove the alleged signatures of the complainant/appellant on the aforesaid document. Since, the respondent has failed to prove that the aforesai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e loan given to him being Rs 10,40,000/-. This is also the case of the complainant/appellant that the respondent/accused issued several cheques drawn on Canera Bank, Raja Garden, New Delhi towards payment of the aforesaid loan amount. The cheques, when presented to the bank, were dishonoured for want of payment. After serving statutory notice upon the respondent/accused, the appellant/complainant filed as many as nine complaints against the respondent/accused under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. The Trial Court, having held that the respondent had issued the cheques in question in discharge of a debt or a liability and finding that the cheques were dishonoured when presented to the bank and the respondent/accused did not make payment of the cheque amount, despite receipt of legal notice, convicted him under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 3. Being aggrieved from his conviction, the respondent/accused preferred appeals before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who vide impugned order dated 27.04.2013 held that the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability was doubtful and accordingly set aside the order passed by the Trial Court and acq ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sisters and Rs2.80 lakh from Mr Jacky. She admitted that both her sisters are housewives. She claimed that her sisters arranged the money by taking loan from one Saini Society out of their personal savings. The complainant/appellant did not produce either of her sisters or Mr Jackey, to prove the loan alleged to have been taken by her from them. Therefore, her deposition in this regard remained unsubstantiated. Even otherwise, it would be difficult to accept that the complainant would have raised loan from several persons, not for her personal needs, but for advancing loan to the respondent from time to time. In the normal course of human conduct, no one is likely to take obligation of others just to give loan to another person, unless he/she obtains a substantial advantage, by undertaking exercise of this nature. He/she would know that even if the person whom he/she lends money does not return the loan amount, she would have to return the loan, to the persons from whom it is taken. Therefore, he/she won t take such a risk, except for strong reasons. 9. According to complainant, even her sisters had raised loan from a society for advancing money to her. It would be difficult to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thout taking cheques from him. Therefore, the respondent while returning the said loan would certainly have insisted on taking back the cheques which he had issued to the complainant/appellant. In these circumstances, I am of the considered view that though the appellant/complainant has failed to prove that she had advanced loan to the extent of Rs.10.40 lakh, the evidence which has come on record clearly shows that she had advanced a loan of at least Rs.3.00 lakh to the respondent which he is yet to repay. Therefore, it cannot be said that the cheques which the respondent had issued to the complainant/appellant were wholly without any consideration. 12. It is next contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the appellant/complainant is a money lender since she had advanced loan not only to the respondent but also to other persons, namely, Smt. Gomti Dutta and Ms. Keshvi Dutta. He has also pointed out that admittedly as many as 24 complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were filed by the appellant/complainant, besides a suit under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In my view, even if the appellant/complainant was engaged in lending m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
