9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 1067X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respondent claiming that the respondent had approached the complainant for a friendly loan of Rs. 10 lacs for expanding his business whereupon the petitioner gave a loan of Rs. 9,30,000/- in the month of February, 2006 to the respondent. The respondent issued a post dated cheque bearing No. 593765 dated 2,5.2006 for the aforesaid loan amount which, on presentation, was dishonoured with the remarks 'insufficient funds'. After complying with the legal requirement of sending a statutory notice, the present petitioner filed a complaint against the respondent. The petitioner produced pre-summoning evidence whereupon the respondent was summoned and a notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. was served and the petitioner/complainant was cross ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g, firstly, that the petitioner had given a huge amount of Rs. 9,30,000/- as loan to the respondent, however, the petitioner has failed to show as to from where such an amount could be generated by him. Secondly, his cross-examination was also evasive as the amount of loan was neither reflected in the income-tax return nor was he able to give the details of the Ward number or the information as to whether the cheque bearing No. 593766 was encashed by him on 5.7.2004 amounting to Rs. 18,000/ - because both the cheques, that is, the cheque bearing No. 593765, the cheque in question and another cheque bearing No. 593766, the next leaf of the cheque book in question, are stated to have been issued by the respondent. The learned trial court has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nced as a loan then the person who has purportedly advanced the loan must also show the solvency to the extent of the loan either through the bank account or through other means. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the respective sides and have gone through the impugned order. I find myself in agreement with the reasoning given by the learned Magistrate. 6. The case of the petitioner in nutshell is that he had been approached by the respondent and he had advanced a loan of Rs. 9,30,000/- in the first instance. If such a huge amount of money is advanced as a loan to the respondent, the petitioner ought to have shown to the court concerned as to the source from where he had generated such a huge amount. In his examination ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es duly signed by the member. The respondent has taken the plea that he had issued two cheques in consecutive order sometime in the middle of the year 2004 when he was a subscriber to a committee. One cheque for a sum of Rs. 18,000/- was encashed in the month of July, 2007. This further lends strength to the version of the respondent/accused. It is the case of the respondent that the second cheque which was bearing an earlier number 593765 and was signed by him was sought to be retrieved by him from the petitioner but the petitioner stated that the cheque has been lost while as he surreptitiously presented the cheque after filling up the amount in the cheque to the tune of Rs. 9,30,000/-. This seems to be fairly possible and creates a doubt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
