Delhi District Court
Anil Kumar Ahlawat vs . Raman Lal Gupta on 16 March, 2015
1
IN THE HON'BLE COURT OF SH.CHANDER MOHAN, MM02 NI ACT (SED),
SAKET COURT, NEW DELHI.
Complaint Case No. 3228/14
UNIQUE ID CASE NO.02406R0087472011
In the matter of:
Anil Kumar Ahlawat,
S/o Sh. Om Prakash,
R/o 9 A, Gali No11, Hanuman Mandir Road,
Molar Band Ext. Badarpur, New Delhi110044.
...Complainant
Versus
Raman Lal Gupta,
C/o Agya Ram,
R/o 20/451, DDA Flats,
Dakshin Puri, New Delhi110065.
...Accused
Date of Institution : 18.04.2011
Date of Reserving Judgment / Order : 12.03.2015
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment/ Order : 16.03.2015
Anil Kumar Ahlawat Vs. Raman Lal Gupta
2
CASE OF THE COMPLAINANT
It is case of the complainant that accused was known to him for the last
many years and approached him for urgent/ bonafied need of money for the sum
of Rs. 30,000/, which the he gave to him in cash. To discharge his liability
accused issued a cheque bearing no. 355769 dated 14.02.2011 for a sum of Rs.
30,000/ drawn on HDFC Bank Limited, Saket Branch. This cheque is the
subject matter of the present complaint and has been dishonoured with remarks
"Funds Insufficient" vide returning memo dated 24.02.2011 and legal notice of
demand dated 01.03.2011 has failed to secure the loan amount, hence
complainant has filed the present case.
DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED
Accused was summoned by my Ld. Predecessor vide summoning
order dated 18.04.2011 U/s 138 NI Act and he was put to notice U/s 251
Cr.P.C on 22.02.2012 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial by
disclosing the following defence:
"The cheque in question bears my signatures but other contents
of the cheques were not filled by me. In the year 2010, complainant
took two signed cheques including the present one for security for the
return of the loan. I have already returned the loan amount of Rs.
30,000/ with interest @ 2% p.m. to the complainant but the complainant
did not return me the security cheque despite my repeated requests.
Anil Kumar Ahlawat Vs. Raman Lal Gupta
3
The complainant has filed a totally false case against me on the basis of
the security cheque. I owe no legal liability towards the complainant.
The other security cheque was of OBC Bank, Delhi is still lying with the
complainant and he may also misuse the same".
BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT
Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read as under:
Presumption in favour of the holder It shall be presumed, unless
the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of
the nature referred to in section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part,
of any debt or other liability.
Further, explanation to section 138 of the ActFor the purposes of
this section, "debt or other liability" means a legally enforceable debt or
other liability.
It is well settled that the above presumption is rebuttable. This
court is of the opinion that the accused has been able to raise a probable
defence and rebut the above presumption due to cumulative effect of following
reasons:-
1.The complaint is silent about the date, month or even year of the advancement of the loan. Same is the case with evidence by way of affidavit Ex. CW1/H. Even the complaint or the above affidavit is silent about the duration for which the loan was advanced.
2. It is quite strange that at the time of advancement of loan no pronote, Anil Kumar Ahlawat Vs. Raman Lal Gupta 4 receipt, acknowledgment, agreement etc. was not obtained from the accused. It is a circumstance that goes against the complainant.
3. The complaint is even silent about the exact or approximate date when the cheque in question was handed over by the accused to the complainant. However, in his cross examination complainant has stated that when the money was granted, accused did not issue him cheque on the spot but had handed over the cheque in question to him in the month of January 2011 which was dated 14.02.2011, meaning thereby the cheque was given to the complainant subsequently ( In his cross examination complainant has stated that the loan was advanced in November/ December 2010). It is quite unnatural and imprudent. No prudent person would handover a post dated cheque to other person for repaying the loan which he had taken earlier and thereby incurring the risk of dishonour and consequently criminal liability, knowing well that otherwise, at the most, he shall only has only to incure civil liability. Under the Indian evidence act the standard to gauge the evidence is of an ordinary prudent man. There was no reason or compulsion for the accused to issue post dated cheque subsequent to taking of loan unless and until he was very sure that it would be honoured.
Hence, in view of the above reasons the version of the accused that the two blank signed cheques (out of which one is the subject matter of present case) were given to the complainant as security for procuring the loan and he has already repaid the loan amount alongwith interest inspires confidence. Anil Kumar Ahlawat Vs. Raman Lal Gupta 5 In view of the above reasons accused Sh. Raman Lal Gupta is acquitted of offence U/s 138 NI Act. Surety bounds and bail bonds, if any, stands discharged. Documents, if any, be returned. Endorsement, if any, stands cancelled.
Pronounced in the open court (Chander Mohan)
On 16.03.2015 MM02 (NI ACT), South East, Saket
16.03.2015
Anil Kumar Ahlawat Vs. Raman Lal Gupta