Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2025 (3) TMI 892

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Smt. Gurmeet Kaur could have been pre- planned by Respondent in connivance with DW3-Smt. Gurmeet Kaur, only to disprove the claim of the Revisionist of having given loan of Rs. 2 lakhs to the Respondent. It is also pertinent to note that Smt. Gurmeet Kaur was an employee with the Complainant, which does not rule out the possibility of he having found the blank signed cheque of Respondent. Therefore, the cheque which got misplaced from Smt. Gurmeet Kaur may have landed in the possession of the Complainant as they both were working in the same office, a defence which cannot be completely discarded. Conclusion - The learned ASJ has thus, rightly concluded that there is no evidence to establish the legally enforceable liability for which the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... UPC was never returned back. 4. Complaint under Section 138 NI Act was filed against the Respondent. Notice under Section 251 NI Act was given to the Respondent who admitted that the cheque dated 05.09.2007 bears his signatures, but denied that the contents of the Cheque were filled by him. He further disclosed the defence that he had given a blank cheque to Smt. Gurmeet Kaur for discharge of his liability of loan of Rs. 30,000/- which he had taken from her, but because the Cheque got misplaced, he made the repayment in cash on 05.09.2007. Smt. Gurmeet Kaur lodged a Complaint on the same day vide DD No.30-A in regard to loss of the Cheque. He denied that he had taken any amount of Rs. 2 lakhs from the Complainant. 5. The Revisionist Shri .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he cheque being misplaced and not a formal Complaint. 11. Pertinently, this document was never put to DW2 in order to prove its genuineness. It is not been appreciated that the Respondent/accused had never given any suggestion that the Complainant/Revisionist had no means to advance the loan and the capacity of the Revisionist to advance the loan was never questioned and has not been proved on behalf of the Respondent. The Petitioner had offered to produce his bank accounts of the relevant period in his cross-examination, but the Respondent never insisted on their production. 12. It has been wrongly held by the learned ASJ that the capacity of the Petitioner to advance loan, has not been proved. The learned ASJ has also failed to apprecia .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 9.2007. 15. It is asserted that non-action on the part of the Respondent creates a doubt about the defence set up by him. Moreover, the testimony of the witnesses has not been appreciated in the right earnest and the impugned judgment of acquittal of learned ASJ is liable to be set aside. 16. Submissions heard and record perused. 17. A Complaint under Section 138 NI Act had been filed by the Revisionist in respect of dishonour of cheque No.403621 dated 05.09.2007 in the sum of Rs. 2 lakhs allegedly given to him by the Respondent for the loan of Rs. 2 lakhs given by the Complainant to him. 18. The first pertinent aspect which comes up for consideration is whether the loan in fact was given to the Respondent and that the Cheque was issued .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... was issued after 15 days, which is claimed to be the date of repayment and not on the date of giving the alleged loan on 20.08.2007. 21. In this context, it is relevant to consider the defence of Respondent- Bhairon Ghosh who has explained in detail in his testimony as DW1 that he knew Gurmeet Kaur with whom he had friendly relations, who was also employed with the Complainant. He was admittedly supplying Taxis to the office where Complainant and Smt. Gurmeet Kaur were employed. He further explained that he had got the vehicle of Smt. Gurmeet Kaur put on duty with the office where the Complainant was working. His testimony establishes that he had long acquaintance with DW3-Smt. Gurmeet Kaur. 22. He further deposed that he had taken a fri .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates