9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 708X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ash, has been taken but the petitioner has not able to prove it by any cogent evidence. He admittedly has no acknowledgement of repayment of loan from the respondent and has also not been able to explain why he did not take back the cheques from the respondent No. 2, at the time when he made the alleged repayment. It has been rightly held that the petitioner has not been able to discharge the presumption against him under Section 139 of N.I. Act read with Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act. So far as the objection taken in regard to the loan being taken in cash being violative of the Income Tax Act is concerned, it is the respondent No. 2 may be liable for prosecution under Income Tax Act but in view of the categorical admissions of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... long relationships. The petitioner issued cheque bearing Nos. 682924, 682925 and 682929 of Rs. 5,00,000/- each, all dated 24.07.2017, drawn on UCO Bank, Model Town Branch, Delhi, to repay the loan amount which on presentation, were dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds. The Legal Notice dated 05.08.2017 was served upon the petitioner and thereafter, the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act was filed against him. 3. The respondent No. 2, the complainant examined himself as his witness and the petitioner appeared as a witness in his defence. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate held the petitioner guilty under Section 138 of N.I. Act vide Judgment dated 24.08.2022 and awarded him a sentence of SI of six months and also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has placed reliance on Kumar Export vs. Sharma Carpets, 2009 II AD (S.C) 117, to submit that the petitioner has successfully discharged the presumption against him that the cheques had not been issued in discharge of any legal debt or liability. Therefore, the Judgment and Order on sentence are liable to be set-aside. 7. Submissions heard. 8. It is an admitted case of the petitioner that he had taken a cash loan of Rs.15,00,000/- from the respondent No. 2 and had even volunteered to pay the interest while agreeing to return the same in three months. He has further admitted having issued three cheques in discharge of his loan liability, which admittedly got dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds. 9. The only defence that has been put fort ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
