9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 969X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of three months under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for brevity, 'the Act'). Tersely put, facts of the prosecution case are that on 24.6.2003, Ganga Prashad accused borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,82,000/- from Lalit Kumar, complainant with a promise to return the same on demand together with interest at the rate of Rs. 2/- per cent per month. In order to discharge his liability when the debt amount was demanded, Ganga Prashad issued cheque in the sum of Rs. 2,40,000/- dated 30.11.2004 drawn on the Faridkot Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Faridkot (for short, 'the Bank'). When the cheque was presented for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nnocence. He has denied issuance of cheque as well as the receipt of alleged debt amount. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and examining the evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as noticed at the outset. Feeling aggrieved therewith, the accused- appellant preferred an appeal, which met failure vide order dated 12.10.2007 handed down by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot. 6. I have heard Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate, counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate, counsel for respondent. 7. Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate, counsel for the petitioner, making a short shrift of his arguments, canvassed at the bar that (a) the complainant/respondent has fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rther maintained that if there had been no liability, the petitioner would not have issued this cheque in favour of the respondent-complainant. 9. On giving a thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions, the view I am disposed to take is that the submissions made by Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate, counsel for the petitioner, are untenable for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. 10. Of course, it is in the cross-examination of Lalit Kumar, complainant- respondent, PW-1 that the petitioner did not sign the cheque in his presence and that his signatures are with blue pen though the columns of the same have been filled with black pen and that both the writings appear to be different in nature but the fact remains that the petitioner has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cheque. As observed in re: K.I. George v. Muhammed Master, (1999)97 Company Cases 664, the presumption available under Section 139 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, can be rebutted by the accused by adducing the evidence. So, the burden of proof is on the accused and the evidence available on record will have to be appreciated by bearing in mind the above fact regarding burden of proof. 13. Reverting back to the facts of the instant case, the petitioner has not adduced even a scintilla of evidence operating as rebuttal to the presumption arising under Section 139 ibid. In his statutory statement, he has merely denied the issuance of cheque as well as the obtaining of the loan amount from the complainant. This bald plea having not bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
