9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 131X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a valid demand notice as per the proviso of Section 138(b) of the Act, 1881, the due amount of bounced cheque, and other additionally claimed amounts should be mentioned in a separate portion. In the demand notice, if other amount is mentioned with the cheque amount in a separate portion in detail, the said notice cannot be faulted. In the case on hand, the complainant demanded the cheque amount of Rs.9.00 lakhs and he additionally demanded Rs.5,000/- towards charges for issuance of the legal notice. Therefore, Ex.P.11 is a valid one. Whether the non-production of bank statements or Income Tax returns by the complainant would vitiate the complaint itself? - HELD THAT:- In the light of the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Ragini Gupta vs. Piyush Dutt Sharma [ 2019 (4) TMI 114 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] , the finding of the learned trial Court that as the complainant failed to disclose Rs.42.00 lakhs alleged to have invested for the production of the film in his income tax returns is not correct because if the complainant did not disclose his income in the Income Tax Return, then the Income Tax Department is well within its rights to reopen the assessment of income of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioning the legality and validity of the judgment dated 04.12.2017, passed in C.C.No.24 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the V Special Magistrate, Hyderabad, wherein the trial Court acquitted the first respondent / accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, the complainant filed the present appeal. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties to this appeal will hereinafter be referred to as they were arrayed before the trial Court. 3. Shorn of unnecessary details, relevant aspects of the matter are as follows: The complainant and the accused are friends. They wanted to start production of film in the year 2010. The complainant spent an amount of Rs.42.00 lakhs till 2003 in that regard. Therefore, the complainant and the accused entered into an agreement of settlement on 20.8.2013 wherein the accused agreed to pay a sum of Rs.9.00 lakhs. The accused issued five cheques vide Exs.P.1, P.4, P.6, P.8 and P.10 in favour of the complainant towards the payment of amount in terms of the above said agreement. When the complainant presented the said cheques into bank for realisation, those were returned unpaid for the reason insufficient funds vide c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, which he failed to discharge. He further submitted that when the accused did not deny his signatures on the alleged cheques, the Court has to draw presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act in favour of the complainant. 9. The learned counsel for the complainant further submitted that payment of cash can never be termed as unaccountable money and it cannot be said to be not legally recoverable amount in Court. 10. The predominant contention of the learned counsel for the complainant is that in view of the ratio laid down in Suman Sethi vs. Ajay K. Churiwal (2000) 2 SCC 380 and K.R.Indira vs. G.Adinarayana (2003) 8 SCC 300 , the complainant is entitled to claim other charges besides the cheque amount. 11. The learned counsel for the complainant further contended that mere non-filing of Income Tax Return would not automatically dislodge the source of income of the complainant. He lastly contended that the accused has not rebutted the presumption available under Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I.Act. 12. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 13. Basing on the above contentions, the following points are framed for disposal of this appeal: 1) Wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es were also made did not vitiate the notice. In a given case if the consolidated notice is found to provide sufficient information envisaged by the statutory provision and there was a specific demand for the payment of the sum covered by the cheque dishonoured, mere fact that it was consolidated notice, and/or that further demands in addition to the statutorily envisaged demand was also found to have been made may not invalidate the same . 16. As per the principle laid down in the above decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the above cases, to make a valid demand notice as per the proviso of Section 138(b) of the Act, 1881, the due amount of bounced cheque, and other additionally claimed amounts should be mentioned in a separate portion. In the demand notice, if other amount is mentioned with the cheque amount in a separate portion in detail, the said notice cannot be faulted. In the case on hand, the complainant demanded the cheque amount of Rs.9.00 lakhs and he additionally demanded Rs.5,000/- towards charges for issuance of the legal notice. Therefore, Ex.P.11 is a valid one. 17. Coming to the second point, in Ragini Gupta vs. Piyush Dutt Sharma MANU/MP/0115/2019 the Madhya ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
