Bangalore District Court
E.Ashok vs Vijayalakshmi on 14 July, 2020
IN THE COURT OF THE XXIII ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITON
MAGISTRATE, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU CITY
Dated this the 14th day of July - 2020
PRESENT: SRI. SHRIDHARA.M, B.A., LL.M.,
XXIII Addl.C.M.M., Bengaluru City.
C.C.NO.251/2017
JUDGMENT UNDER SECTION 355 OF Cr.P.C.
Complainant : E.Ashok,
S/o.Ethiraj,
Aged about 40 years,
R/at No.41, 1st Main Road,
New Guddadahalli,
Mysore Road,
Bengaluru-26.
(Rep. by Sri.S.Srinivasareddy, Adv.)
V/S
Accused : Vijayalakshmi,
W/o.Ramesh,
Aged about 50 years,
R/at. No.6, 4th Main,
BCC Layout, Chandra Layout,
Bengaluru-40.
(Rep.by Sri.L.Lankesh, Adv.)
OFFENCE COMPLAINED OF : U/Sec. 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act.
PLEAD OF THE ACCUSED : Not guilty.
FINAL ORDER : Accused is Acquitted.
DATE OF ORDER : 14.07.2020.
(SHRIDHARA.M)
XXIII Addl.CMM., Bengaluru.
Judgment 2 C.C.No.251/2017
JUDGMENT
The complainant has presented the instant complaint against the accused on 23.12.2016 under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, for dishonour of cheque of Rs1,20,000/-.
2. The factual matrix of the complainant case is:
The accused has been introduced to the complainant by one Ravindra Prasad, who is the common friend of the complainant. On 16.03.2016, the accused had approached the complainant and obtained hand loan of Rs.1,20,000/- from the complainant to meet her urgent domestic purpose and also for family necessities, she assured to repay the same within 5 months. On the same day, the accused towards discharge of her liability had executed On demand promissory note and consideration receipt and also issued post dated cheque bearing No.717928 dated:16.08.2016 for sum of Rs.1,20,000/- drawn on Post Office Savings Bank, GPO, Bengaluru in favour of complainant and assured to honour the same on the date of its presentation.
The complainant has further alleged that, on the due date, when complainant had informed the accused about the Judgment 3 C.C.No.251/2017 presentation of the cheque, she requested the complainant to present it during 1st week of October, 2016, at her request on
03.10.2016, he presented the said cheque for encashment through his banker viz., Indian Bank, New Timber Yard Layout Branch, Bengaluru. On seeing the memo dated:04.10.2016 intimated to the complainant on 07.10.2016, he got utter shock and surprise, as the said cheque came to be dishonoured for the reasons "Funds Insufficient". Immediately, the complainant approached the accused and informed her about the same, she drag on the same on one or other pretext and since, he had no other alternative gave legal notice on 03.11.2016 by R.P.A.D, the same was not claimed by the accused, it was returned with shara "Unclaimed/Door Locked/Returned to Sender" and however, intimation delivered on 10.11.2016. The accused neither paid the amount nor replied the notice. Thereby, she committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. In the complaint it also mentioned in para No.6, as to there is delay of unmentioned days and filing necessary application and affidavit seeking for condonation of delay and contended similar complaint not filed against the accused. Hence, the complaint.
3. After receipt of the private complaint, my predecessor in office took the cognizance and got registered the PCR and Judgment 4 C.C.No.251/2017 recorded the sworn statement. Since made out prima-facie grounds to proceed against the accused for the alleged offence, got issued process.
4. In response to the summons, the accused appeared through her counsel and obtained the bail. As required, complaint copy was supplied to the accused. Thereafter, accusation was read over and explained to her, wherein, she denied the same and claimed to have the defence.
5. To prove the case of the complainant, he himself choosen to examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P8(a). The PW.1 was subjected for cross-examination by the advocate for the accused. In the cross-examination of PW.1, accused counsel got confronted two documents and same are marked as Exs.D1 and D2.
6. Thereafter, incriminating evidence made against the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, wherein the accused denied the same and the answer given by her was recorded. In support of the defence, the accused herself was examined as DW.1 and got marked Exs.D3 to D8 and also subjected for cross-examination by the advocate for the complainant.
Judgment 5 C.C.No.251/2017
7. Both side counsels have addressed their arguments.
8. On going through the rival contentions, based on the substantial evidence available on record, the following points have been arising for determination:
1) Whether the complainant proves beyond the reasonable doubt that, he paid sum of Rs.1,20,000/- on 16.03.2016 as hand loan to the accused, and in turn, for discharge of legal recoverable debt, the accused issued the Ex.P1 cheque bearing No.717928, dated:16.08.2016 for sum of Rs.1,20,000/- drawn on Post Office Savings Bank, GPO, Bengaluru?
2) Whether the complainant proves the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act?
3) What Order?
9. On appreciation of materials available on record, my findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the Negative Point No.2 : In the Negative Point No.3 : As per final order, for the following:
REASONS
10. POINT NOs.1 and 2: Since both the points are connected with each other, they have taken together for common discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts.
Judgment 6 C.C.No.251/2017
11. The PW.1 to prove his case choosen to examined himself and filed affidavit by reiterating the complaint averments in toto, and produced the documents at Exs.P1 to P8, they are:
a) Ex.P1 is the cheque bearing No.717928 issued by the accused for sum of Rs.1,20,000/-
dated:16.08.2016, drawn on Post Office Savings Bank, GPO, Bengaluru.
b) Ex.P1(a) is the alleged signature of accused.
c) Ex.P2 is the Bank Memo dated:04.10.2016.
d) Ex.P3 is the Legal Notice dated:03.11.2016.
e) Ex.P4 is the Postal receipt.
f) Ex.P5 is the unserved R.P.A.D cover.
g) Ex.P5(a) is the legal notice at Ex.P5.
h) Exs.P6 and P7 are the On demand promissory note and consideration receipts dated:16.03.2016 executed by accused in favour of complainant.
i) Exs.P6(a) and P7(a) are the signatures of accused.
j) Ex.P8 is the private complaint and
k) Ex.P8(a) is the signature of complainant. The PW.1 was subjected to the cross-examination by the advocate for the accused.
12. In order to prove the defence of the accused, she herself choosen examined as DW.1 and produced the documents at Exs.D1 to D8. They are:
Judgment 7 C.C.No.251/2017
a) Ex.D1 is the certified copy of private complaint and its enclosures in C.C.No.9037/2017 filed by complainant herein against one Smt.M.Chandrika.
b) Ex.D2 is the certified copy of On demand promissory note and consideration receipt.
c) Ex.D2(a) is the signature of Ravikumar.M.
d) Ex.D3 is the certified copy of private complaint filed by one C.N.Nataraj against accused herein in C.C.No.1474/2016 on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC at Chikmagalur.
e) Ex.D4 is the certified copy of order sheet in C.C.No.1474/2016.
f) Ex.D5 is the certified copy of deposition of complainant - C.N.Nataraj in C.C.No.1473/2016.
g) Ex.D6 is the certified copy of private complaint in C.C.No.5459/2019 filed by K.Ravindra Prasad against M.Bhavya.
i) Ex.D7 is the certified copy of private complaint in C.C.No.10295/2019 filed by K.Ravindra Prasad against one Mahadeva.T.S.
j) Ex.D7(a) and D7(b) are the certified copies of On demand promissory notes and consideration receipts dated:19.09.2018 and 18.07.2018.
k) Ex.D8 is the certified copy of private complaint in PCR No.11572/2017 filed by K.Ravindra Prasad against Smt.Kanakarathna.
13. After cross-examination of PW.1, whatever the incriminating evidence made against the accused was read over and explained to her as required under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., wherein she has denied the same and specifically gave her statement by stating that:
Judgment 8 C.C.No.251/2017
"£À£ÀUÉ ¦AiÀiÁð¢ UÉÆwÛ®è. DvÀ£À£ÀÄß £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è ªÉÄÁzÀ®
¨Áj £ÉÆÃqÀÄwÛzÉÝãÉ. £Á£ÀÄ gÀ«ÃAzÀæ ¥Àæ¸ÁzïgÀªÀgÀ §½ aÃn
ªÀÄvÀÄÛ µÉÃgÀÄ ªÀåªÀºÁgÀ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÉÝ£ÀÄ. µÉÃgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ aÃnAiÀÄ
ªÀåªÀºÁgÀPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ SÁ° ¸À» ªÀiÁrzÀ 2 ZÉPïUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ SÁ° bÁ¥ÁPÁUÀzÀ ºÁUÀÆ ¸À» ªÀiÁrzÀ r.¦.£ÉÆÃmï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ºÀt ¸ÀAzÀ gÀ¹Ã¢UÉ ¸ÀzÀj gÀ«ÃAzÀæ ¥Àæ¸Ázï gÀªÀgÀÄ £À¤ßAzÀ ¥ÀqÉ¢zÀÝgÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ aÃnUÉ ¸ÀA§AzÀs¥ÀlÖAvÉ PÉÆ£ÉAiÀÄ PÀAvÀÄ PÀnÖzÀ §½PÀ D zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄgÀ½¸À®Ä PÉýzÁUÀ E£ÀÆß ºÀt PÀlÖ¯ÉèÉÃPÉAzÀÄ D zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £À£ÀUÉ ªÀÄgÀ½¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. §zÀ°UÉ £À£ÀUÉ ¥ÀjavÀ£À®èzÀ ¦AiÀiÁ𢠺ÁUÀÆ £ÀlgÁd, gÀ«ÃAzÀæ ¥Àæ¸Ázï£À ºÉAqÀwAiÀÄ CPÀÌ£À ªÀÄUÀ£À ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ aPÀ̪ÀÄUÀ¼ÀÆj£À°è 4 ®PÀëPÉÌ ZÉPï¨Ë£ïì ¥ÀæPÀgÀt zÁR°¹zÁÝgÉ. £Á£ÀÄ CªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃr®è. EzÉà £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è ¸ÀzÀj gÀ«ÃAzÀæ ¥Àæ¸ÁzïgÀªÀgÀÄ, £À£ÀߣÀÄß ¦AiÀiÁð¢UÉ vÉÆÃj¹zÀÝgÀÄ. ¦AiÀÄÁð¢UÉ £Á£ÀÄ AiÀiÁgÉAzÀÄ UÉÆwÛ®è. gÀ«ÃAzÀæ ¥Àæ¸Ázï ¦AiÀiÁð¢AiÀÄ ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ zÁR¹zÀ ¸ÀļÀÄî ¥ÀæPÀgÀt ªÀeÁUÉƽ¹ ¦AiÀiÁð¢UÉ ZÉPï£À ºÀt ¤ÃqÀ®Ä ¨sÁzÀå£À®è."
14. That apart, she choosen to entered into witness box and orally examined as DW.1. Wherein she deposed that, she does not know the complainant and after mark her appearance in the present case, she saw him first and she not borrowed the alleged loan of Rs.1,20,000/- from him and in that regard, not executed Judgment 9 C.C.No.251/2017 On demand promissory note and consideration receipt and not issued the questioned cheque to the complainant. The accused specifically placed her defence that, she did share business with Ravindra Prasad and every month she used to invest money of Rs.2,000/- from 2015. After 6 months, the said Ravindra Prasad gave Rs.10,000/- as hand loan on the guarantee of singed 2 blank cheques and one singed blank On demand promissory note and consideration receipt. For the said loan, she paid interest at Rs.300/- per month and principal of Rs.1,000/-, in all Rs.1,300/- she used to pay. Later, after deducting principal, she paid interest for the period of 10 months and accordingly, got cleared the entire loan of the accused. Thereafter, she asked the said Ravindra Prasad to return those cheques, at his house, he told the accused that, Rs.5,000/- amount has to be paid by the accused and by taking such money, then only put steps on his tune. She not paid Rs.5,000/- to him and hence, he through his sister's son by name Nataraj Nayak got filed cheque bounce case for Rs.4 lakhs and by using another cheque filed the instant case through the complainant herein.
15. The accused has further contended that, either, she not seen the complainant and Nataraj Nayak or did any business with them. When she asked Ravindra Prasad along with Indramma, Judgment 10 C.C.No.251/2017 Chithra, Bhavya, Kanakarathna, Chandra Kala and Jayalakshmi and other women folk. Among the above said Chandrakala, the said Ravindra Prasad through the complainant herein as per Ex.D1 filed the cheque bounce case. Accordingly, against Kanakarathna the very said Ravindra Prasad got filed cheque bounce case. Even, against Kanakarathna through Nataraj, the Ravindra Prasad had filed cheque bounce case of Rs.4 lakhs at Chikmagaluru Court. The accused is not liable to pay any money to the complainant, hence, she prayed for dismiss the case. The accused already got marked document at Ex.D1 and D2 in the cross-examination of PW.1 and got produced the complaint, order sheet and chief examination of Nataraj.C.N pertaining to C.C.No.1473/2016 at Ex.D3 to D5. Even by way of further examining the DW.1, the complaint and On demand promissory note and consideration receipt produced pertaining to the case filed by Ravindra Prasad against Bhavya, Mahadeva, Kanakarathna, which got marked at Exs.D6 to D8 and signatures are marked at Exs.D6(a) to D7(d). Thereafter, the DW.1 was tendered for cross-examination. That, the accused got closed her side.
16. On going through the rival contentions of the parties, the fact that, the address of the complainant and accused made mentioned in the complaint is not in dispute. The fact that, Judgment 11 C.C.No.251/2017 questioned cheque and signature therein belongs to the accused is not in dispute. The fact that, the signatures found in Exs.P5 and P6 pertaining to the accused is not in dispute, subject to proof of its due execution and issuance to the complainant. The fact that, questioned cheque came to be dishonoured is not in dispute.
17. The fact that, the elder daughter of the accused working at California and had monthly income at Rs.1 lakh to Rs.2 lakh is undisputed. The fact that, the son of accused by name Pavankumar, is working in IT Company and draws monthly salary of Rs.40,000/- to Rs.50,000/- is undisputed. The fact that, the husband of the accused was retired Labour Officer, had monthly pension at Rs.40,000/- to Rs.50,000/- is undisputed.
The fact that, Ravindra Prasad is the friend of complainant is undisputed. The fact that, with the said Ravindra Prasad, accused and others i.e., Kanakamma, Chithra, Indramma and Chandrakala were joined the share business on paying monthly premium is undisputed. The fact that, the complainant herein as per Ex.D1 had filed cheque bounce case against Chandrakala for Rs.3 lakhs is not in dispute. The fact that, the said Ravindra Prasad was the childhood friend of the complainant is not in dispute. The fact that, the said Ravindra Prasad's wife belongs to Judgment 12 C.C.No.251/2017 Chikkamagalur is not in dispute. The fact that, the sister's son of complainant by name Nataraj at Chikkamagalur is not in dispute. The said Nataraj, who is the relative of Ravindra Prasad had filed the cheque bounce case for Rs.4 lakhs against the very accused herein is undisputed. The fact that, the said Nataraj also filed cheque bounce case for Rs.4 lakhs against Kanakalakshmi is undisputed. The fact that, the Ravindra Prasad has filed cheque bounce case for Rs.2,50,000/- against Kanakalakshmi before this court is undisputed.
The fact that, the witnesses cited in Ex.P6 consideration receipt as well as the Ex.D1 On demand promissory note, produced in C.C.No.9037/2017 filed by one Ashok against Chandrika, wherein, mentioned the witnesses cited are one and the same is not in dispute. The fact that, in both the Exs.P6 and Ex.D1 one Ravikumar is common witness to the On demand promissory note is not in dispute.
The fact that, at the instance of Ravindra Prasad, the complainant got prepared Ex.P6 On demand promissory note and consideration receipt produced in a case at Ex.D1 is undisputed. The said Ravikumar is also common witness to the alleged On Judgment 13 C.C.No.251/2017 demand promissory note executed by Kanakarathna dated:09.10.2016 is not in disputed.
18. Apart from the above clear cut undisputed facts, the other materials ha to be require to be appreciate in the present case. No doubt, the complainant based on the questioned cheque at Ex.P1 cheque has brought the present case by stating that, accused requested for the hand loan on 16.03.2016 on the same day itself, she obtained the loan and got executed the On demand promissory note and gave post dated cheque at Ex.P1, the same got dishonoured, despite, issued legal notice, she not paid the money. Hence, the present case.
19. On going through the complaint allegations, as he brought the case based on questioned cheque, the initial statutory presumption has to be drawn in favour of complainant, as the questioned cheque was issued by the accused in respect of discharge of existence of legally recoverable debt, unless and until contrary prove by virtue of Sections 118 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
20. In this case, the accused has not admitted the claim of complainant, she seriously attack on the claim of complainant by stating that, she does not know the complainant and not borrowed Judgment 14 C.C.No.251/2017 the alleged loan nor executed and issued the questioned cheque as well as On demand promissory note as found in Exs.P1, P5 and P6. But those signed blank documents were issued to Ravindra Prasad in connection to the share transaction and after she joined on monthly payment of Rs.2,000/-. After she joined share, she borrowed sum of Rs.10,000/- on interest on the security of 2 singed blank cheques and 2 On demand promissory notes, she used to pay monthly installment at Rs.1,300/- including principal and interest, subsequently got cleared, when asked for those documents obtained as security, the complainant threatened her that, she has to pay another Rs.5,000/-, unless pay the same not claim the stair case of his house and got misused the same. The said complainant got misused those documents obtained in blank by way of filing present case as well as filed another case through his sister's son by name Nataraj at Chikkamagalur, for dishonour of Rs.4 lakhs, hence, she claimed, she not liable to pay money.
21. The probable defence taken by the accused is substantiated by way of posed each and every question to the PW.1 and connected the alleged documents produced by complainant herein obtained and filed the present case at the instance of Ravindra Prasad including the another case at Judgment 15 C.C.No.251/2017 Chikkamagalur, through his sister's son. That apart, she stated, those facts in her 313 of Cr.P.C. statement and took the risk to entered into witness box and at the time of evidence, by way of producing the documents at Exs.D1 to D3 and she withstood her contention in her cross-examination.
22. However, since the accused attack on the claim of complainant seriously, as Ravindra Prasad got misused the 2 singed blank cheques and 2 On demand promissory notes, which obtained as security for the share/loan of Rs.10,000/-. By making such suggestion, she demonstrate that, Ravindra Prasad, complainant herein and nephew Nataraj Nayak being friends, had filed separate cheque bounce case at Chikkamagalur. The said fact is also proved and not disproved by the complainant herein. Therefore, the nexus of Ravindra Prasad through the complainant herein and Nataraj Nayak in a case filed before Chikkamagalur is been proved.
23. Even, the DW.1 by way of cross-examining the PW.1, as to witness to the On demand promissory note and consideration receipt pertaining to the present case produced at Exs.P5 and P6 and the pertaining to the case at Ex.D1, the role of Ravikumar as Judgment 16 C.C.No.251/2017 common witness is also been admitted by him in the following words, which runs thus:
"F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ZÀA¢æPÁ gÀªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ zÁR°¹gÀĪÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¹gÀĪÀ ¤¦.6 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤r.1 ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À°è ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¹gÀĪÀ ¥Áæ«Ä¸Àj £ÉÆÃmï ¢£ÁAPÀ 06.10.2015 gÀ°ègÀĪÀ ¨Àswð ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ ªÀåQÛ M§âgÀÉà JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. D JgÀqÀÆ ¥Áæ«Ä¸Àj £ÉÆÃmï £À°è PÁtô¹gÀĪÀ ¸ÁQë gÀ«PÀĪÀiÁgï ¸ÁªÀiÁ£Àå ¸ÁQëAiÀiÁVzÁÝgÉAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. gÀ«ÃAzÀæ ¥Àæ¸Ázï gÀªÀgÀ ¸À®ºÉ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ D JgÀqÀÆ ¥Áæ«Ä¸Àj £ÉÆÃmï£ÀÄß vÀAiÀiÁ¹zÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ EgÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ, DvÀ »jAiÀÄ£ÁzÀÝjAzÀ DvÀ£À ¸ÀÆZÀ£É ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ CzÀ£ÀÄß vÀAiÀiÁj¹zÉ JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrAiÀÄÄvÁÛgÉ. gÀ«PÀĪÀiÁgï gÀªÀgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 09.10.2016 gÀAzÀÄ ¥Áæ«Ä¸Àj £ÉÆÃmï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ºÀt ¸ÀAzÁAiÀÄ gÀ²Ã¢AiÀÄ°è, PÀ£ÀPÀgÀvÀß gÀªÀjUÉ §gÉzÀÄPÉÆnÖgÀĪÀ zÁR¯ÉUÀ½UÉ gÀ«PÀĪÀiÁgï ¸ÁªÀiÁ£Àå ¸ÁQëAiÀiÁVzÁÝgÉAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¸ÁQëUÉ ¥Áæ«Ä¸Àj £ÉÆÃmï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ºÀt ¸ÀAzÀ gÀ²Ã¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÉÆÃj¹, CªÀÅUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ M¦àPÉÆAqÀ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ ¤r.2, CzÀgÀ°ègÀĪÀ ¸À»AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤r.2J JAzÀÄ UÀÄgÀÄw¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ. ¤r.2 gÀ ªÉÆvÀÛ PÀ£ÀPÀ®Qëäà ¤ÃqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ gÀ«ÃAzÀæ ¥Àæ¸Ázï ¥ÀæPÀgÀt zÁR°¹zÁÝgÉAzÀgÉ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è. ªÀÄÆgÀÄ ¥Áæ«Ä¸Àj £ÉÆÃmïUÀ¼À£ÀÄß gÀ«ÃAzÀæ ¥Àæ¸Ázï, gÀ«PÀĪÀiÁgï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £Á£ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä C£ÀÄPÀÆ®PÉÌ vÀPÀÌAvÉ ¸ÀȶֹPÉÆAqÀÄ ¨ÉÃgÉ ¨ÉÃgÉ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è ºÁdgÀÄ ¥Àr¹zÉÝÃªÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. ¤¦.1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 6 ZÉPï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ Judgment 17 C.C.No.251/2017 ¥Áæ«Ä¸Àj £ÉÆÃmïUÀ¼À£ÀÄß MAzÉà ¢£À DgÉÆæ¬ÄAzÀ ¥ÀqÉ¢zÉÝãÉ. ¤¦.6 gÀ°è ¤¦.1 gÀ ZÉPÀÌ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ ¹éÃPÀj¹zÀ §UÉÎ £ÀªÀÄÆzÀÄ E®è. ¤¦.1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 6 £ÀÄß ¸ÀȶֹPÉÆAqÀÄ DgÉÆæAiÀÄ «gÀÄzÀÞ ¸ÀļÀÄî ¥ÀæPÀgÀt zÁR°¹zÉÝÃ£É JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è."
24. On going through the said testimony of PW.1, he clear cut made admission as to the witness by name Ravikumar as found in Ex.P6 consideration receipt attached to Ex.P5 On demand promissory note and who is very witness of On demand promissory note at Ex.D1 affixed signature on 06.10.2015. Even, he clear cut admitted, the said On demand promissory note were prepared at the instance of Ravindra Prasad, but he volunteers that, since, he is the senior, at his advise those documents were prepared. Even, the said witness appears to be found in On demand promissory note dated:09.10.2016 alleged to be executed by Kanakarathna. Since, the PW.1 has admitted, the said document which got marked at Ex.D2 and signature of Ravikumar marked at Ex.D2(a). Even he deposed, he does not know Kanakalakshmi by claiming the amount made mentioned in Ex.D2, which is covered under Ex.D2 is not been disputed by the complainant. The suggestion made by the advocate for the accused made clear that, 3 On demand promissory notes were created by complainant, Ravindra Prasad and Ravikumar for their Judgment 18 C.C.No.251/2017 convenience and produced in separate cases. More particularly, the PW.1 has deposed that, Ex.P1 and P6 were taken by complainant on the same day, is not in dispute. Even, he deposed that, in the Ex.P6 consideration receipt, the particulars of cheque at Ex.P1 received by the complainant is not been cited. Thereby, the accused has suggested that, by creating Exs.P1 and P6, the complainant had filed the present false case against the accused, though PW.1 has denied, it revealed, the accused had attack on the claim of complainant based on Ex.P1 as well as Exs.P5 and P6. From the said evidence of accused placed by way of cross-examining, it creates doubt as to the involvement of Ravindra Prasad and who is common witness to On demand promissory note produced by the complainant herein as well as in other cases, which cited supra. Therefore, the accused by way of cross-examining the PW.1 has created doubt, as to the genuineness of Exs.P1, P5 and P6.
25. That apart, the DW.1 subjected for cross-examination, wherein, there is no suggestion made from the complainant cited, as to when she approached the complainant seeking for hand loan of Rs.1,20,000/- and how he mobilized and on whose presence, where, when and for what purpose, he paid the said huge amount to the accused being a house made is not been Judgment 19 C.C.No.251/2017 suggested. Even, on which date exactly paid to the accused is not been suggested. Simply suggested about the borrowing of loan and got issuance of questioned cheque and On demand promissory note at Exs.P1, P5 and P6, the accused has successfully withstood her contention, denying the same and reasserted, she gave those documents in blank to Ravindra Prasad in connection to hand loan/share business and in turn, he got misused through complainant and one Nataraj Nayak, filed separate cheque bounce cases. Nothing has elicited from the month of DW.1, corroborates the case of complainant. The accused successfully withstood her contention, denying whatever the suggestion made by the advocate for the complainant from the point of complainant as well as from the point of documents relied by him. Therefore, the accused has created reverse burden by virtue of Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act to the complainant to prove his case beyond the reasonable doubt. Hence, it requires to appreciate the evidence of complainant as well as documents relied by him.
It is well worthy to cite the decision reported in 2008 AIR SCC 7702 (P. Venugopal V/s.Madan P. Sarathi). Wherein, it was pleased to held by the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court that:
Judgment 20 C.C.No.251/2017 "The presumption raised does not extent to the expenditure that cheque was issued for the discharge of any debt or liability. Which is required to be proved by the complainant. However, it is essentially a question of fact".
In the decision reported in ILR 2009 KAR 1633 (Kumar Exports V/s. Sharma Carpets). Wherein, it was pleased to held by the Hon'ble Apex court that:
(D) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Sections 118, 139 and 138 - Presumption under Sections 118 and 139 - How to be rebutted - Standard of proof required rebuttal - HELD, Rebuttal does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt -
Something probable has to be brought record - Burden of proof can be shifted back to complainant by producing convincing circumstantial evidence - Thereafter the said presumption arising under Section 118 and 139 case to operate - To rebut said presumption accused can also rely upon presumptions under Evidence Act, 1872 Section 114 (common course of natural even human conduct and public and private business) -
Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 114 - Presumptions of fact under".
In the decision of AIR 2008 SC 278 between John K John V/s. Tom Verghees, the Hon'ble Apex court it is held that:
Judgment 21 C.C.No.251/2017 "The presumption under Section 139 could be raised in respect of some consideration and burden is on the complainant to show that he had paid amount shown in the cheque. Whenever there is huge amount shown in the cheque, though the initial burden is on the accused, it is equally necessary to know how the complainant advanced such a huge amount".
26. From the point of above dictums also, it was the reverse burden casted upon the complainant to establish the very case beyond the reasonable doubt in order to convict the accused. As per the above dictums, in view of the accused able to prove her probable defence, as to knowingness of the complainant and serious allegation as to she got issued the questioned cheque obtained through Ravindra Prasad and filed the false case, it is the complainant by virtue of Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, as to discharge his reverse burden and prove the guilt of the accused by proving his case beyond the reasonable doubt.
27. On going through the pleading, the complainant has specifically stated that, he introduced the accused through one Ravindra Prasad, who being common friend of complainant. During the course of cross of DW.1, he clearly admitted that, Judgment 22 C.C.No.251/2017 Ravindra Prasad is his relative, who is none other than his childhood friend. But the accused has denied the contention of he not known the complainant and not borrowed the alleged loan from him. Therefore, though complainant has contended, he was introduced the accused through Ravindra Prasad, it is worthy to examine the said Ravindra Prasad in order to introduction of the accused made by him to the complainant as well as answer the serious allegation made by the accused. But for the reasons better known to the complainant, though he is claiming, he is a friend not choosen to examined the said Ravindra Prasad is created doubt, as to the bonafidness of the complainant, his role behind the back of complainant.
28. That apart, in the complaint, he stated that, on 16.03.2016, the accused had approached the complainant and obtained hand loan of Rs.1,20,000/- to meet out her urgent domestic purpose and family necessities. The PW.1, though pleaded as such, was it possible to pay money on the date of request made by the accused, as she does not known to the complainant and he was introduced through Ravindra Prasad, therefore, asking the money and mobilized the same and given its as hand loan on the very same day is also not been satisfactorily explained. But in the Judgment 23 C.C.No.251/2017 cross-examination against his own pleading, as to the request made by the accused, the PW.1 has deposed that:
"DgÉÆæ 2016 gÀ ªÀiÁZïð wAUÀ¼À°è £ÀªÀÄä £ÉgɪÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ¤ªÁ¹ ¨Á§tÚ£À ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ £À£Àß §½ ºÀtzÀ CªÀ±ÀåPÀvÉ EzÉ JAzÀÄ PÉýzÀÝgÀÄ. DgÉÆæ £À£Àß°è £ÉÃgÀªÁV ¸Á® PÉý®è. ¢£ÁAPÀ 13/14 ªÀiÁZïð 2016 gÀAzÀÄ £À£Àß §½ D jÃw ¸Á® PÉýgÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ. ªÉÊAiÀÄQÛPÀ ¸ÀªÀĸÉå EzÀÄÝ PÉýzÀÝgÀÄ. ¤¢ðµÀÖªÁzÀ PÁgÀt K£ÀÄ JAzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è. ¨Á§tÚ UÁågÉAlgï EzÀÝ PÁgÀt DgÉÆæUÉ ªÀiÁ£À«ÃAiÀÄvÉAiÀÄ zÀȶ֬ÄAzÀ ¸Á® ¤ÃqÀ®Ä M¦àzÉÝ. D ¸Á® KPÉ JAzÀÄ PÉüÀĪÀ CUÀvÀå £À£ÀUÉ EgÀ°®è. ¸ÀzÀj ¨Á§tÚ EzÀÝ PÁgÀt DvÀ£À ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀĪÀgÀ£ÀÄß PÀgÉvÀgÀ®Ä ºÉüÀĪÀ CUÀvÀå EgÀ°®è. £Á£ÀÄ ¯ÉêÁ-zÉë ªÀåªÀºÁgÀ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅ¢¯è. DgÉÆæUÉ ¸Á® ¤ÃrzÉÝÃ£É JAzÀÄ ºÉüÀĪÀ jÃwAiÀįÉèà ¨ÉÃgÉAiÀĪÀjUÉ ¸Á® ¤Ãr®è."
29. On going through the said testimony of PW.1, he stated through one Babanna, the accused was introduced to the complainant during March, 2016 and she was requesting for the loan. More particularly, accused not asked the loan directly to the complainant. If at all, as pleaded by the complainant one Ravindra Prasad was introduced the accused to him, he should state in his name in his cross-examination. But in his cross- examination he deposed, one Babanna has introduced her to the complainant. He himself not deposed, Babanna and Ravindra Judgment 24 C.C.No.251/2017 Prasad are one and the same. If at all, he projected the case, as introduced by Ravindra Prasad definitely, he could have state his name as said, but not discloses in the cross-examination. More particularly, she clearly deposes, the accused directly not asked loan from the complainant. Then, it is him to explain to whom the accused was requested for the loan and who brought her to the complainant is not been explained. Though, in the cross- examination as stated, asked through Babanna, the said Babanna is the material witness to the request made by the accused, as to the loan nor know, when, where and how much amount was requested by accused could have been seen, if at all, he examine. But the complainant for the reasons known to him, avoided either Babanna or Ravindra Prasad to substantiate his contention is also one of the strong circumstances to suspect the very evidence of complainant. By way of PW.1 deposes, accused not directly asked the loan from complainant, it has to be presume that, accused not requested the loan from the complainant. Therefore, it is the complainant has to demonstrate, through whom accused approached and sought for the loan, but he failed to demonstrate the same.
30. That apart, in the above said cross-examination, the PW.1 as deposed, about 13th or 14th of March, 2016, the accused could Judgment 25 C.C.No.251/2017 have been asked for the loan for her personal purpose and not stated the specific reason the said date reveal that as per the say of PW.1, he is not informed exactly when accused asked for the loan either it was 13th or 14th, at least the said fact could have been narrated in the pleading, but the same is absent. Therefore, on the date 16.03.2016, accused approached the complainant and asked for the loan and obtained the loan on the same day is not been proved by the complainant in view of his cross- examination. If at all, any unknown person asked for the loan, was it possible to disburse the same without asking the requirement. As per say of PW.1, he stated, without asking the reason, he claimed to be paid the loan is also very doubtful. The PW.1 has stated, Babanna stood as guarantor for the said loan, therefore, on humanitarian ground he agreed to pay loan and adamantly he deposes, it was not require to him ask the reason for borrowing of loan. Therefore, the very answer given by the PW.1, it shows that, more because of he possess the cheque at Ex.P1, it made him to answer recklessly. It is him to disclose the purpose of requirement of huge loan, as it is the huge amount of Rs.1,20,000/-.
31. That apart, the PW.1 has stated that, on the security of Babanna, he gave loan. Therefore, the said Babanna require to Judgment 26 C.C.No.251/2017 be examine before this court, but not examined. Therefore, if at all, complainant not paid any such amount, in view of the accused strongly denied the borrowal of loan and issuance of questioned cheque, it is let the complainant to approach Babanna, but he stated, he was no need to ask the complainant to bring the family members of her at the time of alleged lent of loan. It shows that, at the risk and cost of the complainant, he projected this case; therefore, it is require to him to prove. The PW.1 has deposed, he is not doing money lending business and stated that, except the complainant not lent loan to others. Therefore, it made clear that, as per say of PW.1, he lent loan to the accused, he must specify that, which date the accused requested, when she borrowed the loan, but he not specifically deposed and it creates doubt, as to the bonafidness of the complainant in placing the present complaint before this court. In view of the accused seriously attack on the claim of complainant, his conduct as well as his and Ravindra Prasad and other persons, who filed cases against accused and others.
32. The PW.1 in the further cross-examination has deposed that, he not lent loan on interest, but accused requested for pay the loan with interest. Even he not specified, whatever the rate of interest, but on perusal of Ex.P7 it discloses, the rate of interest Judgment 27 C.C.No.251/2017 typed as 12% p.a. It clearly discloses, the complainant is doing money lending business, therefore, very independently, without got filled those On demand promissory note and consideration receipt, got typed in order to avoid the suspicious circumstances, would have been arise in the event of accused questioned those documents well in precaution, he placed the typed version of On demand promissory note and consideration receipt as per Exs.P6 & P7. The accused specifically contended that, the said signed blank documents were given to Ravindra Prasad in connection to the share/loan transaction, but the same got misused by the complainant at the instance of Ravindra Prasad. Though, there was serious attack with regard to the said document and its creation against the interest of the accused, the complainant not choosen to examine the said RavindraPrasad or any one of the witnesses cited in those documents, is fatal to the case of complainant.
33. During the course of cross of PW.1 as to the Exs.P6 and P7, he deposed that:
"DgÉÆæUÉ §rØ gÀ»vÀªÁV ¸Á® ¤ÃrzÉÝ. DPÉAiÉÄà £À£ÀUÉ ¸Àé®à ¸ÉÃj¹ PÉÆqÀĪÀÅzÁV w½¹zÀÝgÀÄ, ¤RgÀªÁV JµÉÖAzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ PÉý®è DPÉ ºÉüÀ°®è. ¸Á® ¤ÃrzÁUÀ DgÉÆæ MAzÀÄ ZÉPÀÌ£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ Judgment 28 C.C.No.251/2017 D£ï-rªÀiÁåAqï ¥ÉÇæ£ÉÆÃl£ÀÄß PÉýzÀÝgÀÄ. DgÉÆæAiÉÄà CªÀÅUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £À£ÀUÉ ¤ÃrzÀÝgÀÄ. CªÀÅUÀ¼À£ÀÄß DgÉÆæAiÉÄà ¨Àswð ªÀiÁr, ¢£ÁAPÀ £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹ 6 wAUÀ¼À M¼ÀUÉ D ºÀt ¤ÃqÀĪÀÅzÁV w½¹ PÉÆnÖzÀÝgÀÄ. ¸Á® ¤ÃrzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ 16.03.2016 gÀAzÀÄ DgÉÆæ £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹zÀÝgÀÄ. ZÉQÌUÉ 6 wAUÀ¼À CªÀ¢ü ¢£ÁAPÀ £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹ PÉÆnÖzÀÝgÀÄ. DgÉÆæAiÉÆA¢UÀÉ §A¢zÀÝ ªÀåQÛ D£ï-rªÀiÁåAqï ¥Áæ«Ä¸Àj £ÉÆÃmïUÉ «µÀAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß ¨Àswð ªÀiÁr PÉÆnÖzÀÝgÀÄ. DvÀ AiÀiÁgÉAzÀÄ UÉÆwÛ®è. D ªÀåQÛ CzÀPÉÌ ¸À» ªÀiÁr®è. DvÀ£Éà CzÀ£ÀÄß ¨Àswð ªÀiÁr vÀA¢zÀÝgÀÄ. CzÀPÉÌ ¨Á§tÚ JA§ ¸ÁQë ¸À» ªÀiÁrzÁÝgÉ. ¨Á§tÚ JA§ ªÀåQÛ gÀ«ÃAzÀæ ¥Àæ¸Ázï JA§ ºÉ¸Àj¤AzÀ CzÀPÉÌ ¸À» ªÀiÁrzÁÝgÉ. ¨Á§tÚ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ gÀ«ÃAzÀæ ¥Àæ¸Ázï J£ÀÄߪÀ ªÀåQÛ ¨ÉÃgÉ ¨ÉÃgÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. £ÉÆÃn¸ï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zÀÆj£À°è ¨Á§tÚ ºÉýzÀ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ ¸Á® ¤ÃrzÉÝ JA§ÄzÁV PÁtô¹®è JAzÀgÉ D CUÀvÀå E®è JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrAiÀÄÄvÁÛgÉ."
34. On going through the said testimony of PW.1, he deposed, without interest he lent loan, but stated, accused herself had money would returned, but he not specified what was that payment. He also deposed, at the time of he lent loan, accused gave one cheque and On demand promissory note to him. As per the said testimony he deposed, one cheque and On demand promissory note were given by the accused at the time of alleged lent of loan. But in the pleading the complainant has stated, at the Judgment 29 C.C.No.251/2017 time of lent of loan, accused gave the same. As per his say, at the time of lent of loan, he secured those documents. More particularly he deposed, the accused herself got filled the same and undertakes to repay the same within 6 months handed over those documents. More particularly, he deposed, the accused has mentioned the date:16.03.2016, as on the date of alleged lent of loan. He stated that, the person who came along with accused at the time of borrow loan, got filled the On demand promissory note and given to him and he does not know, who was he. He stating that, fellow was not singed the said document, but said, he himself filled the same and brought. He particularly stated, to the said Ex.P6 Babanna as witness, affixed his signature. More particularly he stated, Babanna put his signature to the said document in the name of Ravindra Prasad. He denied the suggestion that, Ravindra Prasad and Babanna are altogether different persons. In the fag end of the said cross-examination, he stated, it is not require to mention at the instance of Babanna, he lent loan to the accused. The approach of PW.1 is that, whatever the case he brought before this court is to be accept, as genuine unless he discharged his burden and remove doubtful circumstances created by the accused. From the said testimony Judgment 30 C.C.No.251/2017 of PW.1 it reveal that, the person came along with accused got filled Exs.P6 and P7.
35. On meticulous perusal of the same, it was not filled by any hand writing, but it was typed. If at all typed, it is the complainant has to demonstrate, who typed, where it was done and on whose instance it was prepared. But no such explanation is forth coming from his side. If at all, Babanna himself told to Ravindra Prasad, why the said discrepancy is made in the pleading as well as evidence of PW.1, he could have straightaway stated, both are one and the same. But no such explanation is forth coming from his side. The very evidence of PW.1, it creates doubt, as to due execution and issuance of Exs.P6 and P7 in favour of the complainant in connection to the alleged loan transaction.
36. On going through the Ex.P7, it was alleged to be issued on the date of borrowal of loan, on bare perusal of the same, it discloses, the signature and other writings with the dates are made in different hand writing and ink. Therefore, why the said changes were made, is also not been explained. If at all, accused himself got executed and issued questioned cheque in favour of the complainant, definitely, he could have prove the same, but failed to demonstrate, the accused was handed over the same.
Judgment 31 C.C.No.251/2017 As per his say, the person came along with accused got filled. When he himself was very much present and gave the alleged loan, definitely, he must know, who was that person, definitely, on behalf of accused, he could have brought the said fellow as witness to the On demand promissory note, but for the reasons better known to complainant avoided in doing so and hence, his contention as to the person came along with accused got filled the cheque is also not proved.
37. The adamanent conduct of the PW.1 is also to be seen during his cross-examination that:
"¤¦-1J ¸À» «£ÀB G½zÀ §gÀºÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¢£ÁAPÀ DgÉÆæAiÀÄzÀݯÁè JAzÀgÉ £À£ÀUÉ ¨ÉÃPÁV®è. DPÉ D ZÉPÀÌ£ÀÄß £À£ÀUÉ ¤ÃrzÁÝgÉ £Á£ÀÄ ElÄÖPÉÆArzÉÝãÉ. DgÉÆæ ¸Á®zÉÆA¢UÉ ºÉaÑ£À ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÉÃj¹ PÉÆqÀĪÀÅzÁV w½¹zÀÄÝ, D ¥ÀæPÁgÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ªÉÆvÀÛ £À£ÀUÉ ¤ÃrgÀ°®è. ¤¦-7 gÀ°è 12% §rØ JA§ÄzÁV PÁtô¹zÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ CzÀ£ÀÄß DgÉÆæAiÉÄà O¥ÀZÁjPÀªÁV §gÉzÀÄ vÀA¢zÁÝgÉAzÀÄ £ÀÄrAiÀÄÄvÁÛgÉ. D §UÉÎ F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è F ªÉÆzÀ®Ä PÁtô¹®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¤¦-6 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 7 £ÀÄß F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtPÁÌV £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÀȶֹPÉÆArzÉÝÃ£É JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è."
38. The PW.1 during his cross-examination when suggested by the accused, as to the signature in the cheque and other writings Judgment 32 C.C.No.251/2017 are not of the accused, but he deposed, it is not require to him, but stated, accused gave it to him, hence, he kept with him. The said evidence discloses the PW.1 is acting to the tune of someone else; therefore, he not answered the question raised by the accused, as to the due execution and its issuance. Though, in the said cross-examination stated, formally the accused agreed to give interest at 12% p.a. hence, she got right the same in Exs.P6 and P7 and handed over to him. As said earlier it was not written by accused, but it was typed. Therefore, the PW.1 himself does not known, whether it was known or not, but recklessly deposed, it was written by accused. Even he admitted that, pertaining to the said On demand promissory note executed by the accused is not mentioned earlier. The accused has seriously suggested to PW.1 that, Exs.P6 and P7 were created by the complainant. Even, in the further cross-examination it was suggested to the PW.1 that, at the instance of Ravindra Prasad, the complainant has filed false case by misusing the singed blank cheque given to him. That cheque was given to Ravindra Prasad in connection to the share business, but PW.1 has deposed, he was working in press. The very evidence of PW.1, it made clear that, inspite of it repose confidence on the transaction put forth by him, it creates doubt. The accused by way of suggestion as created strong doubtful Judgment 33 C.C.No.251/2017 circumstances, as to the role of Ravindra Prasad, as he secured singed 2 blank cheques and signed blank papers of the accused and filed the present case through complainant herein and another case through Nataraj Nayak before the Chikkamagalur Court.
39. In order to show that, the said Ravindra Prasad got filed several cases against the various persons including the accused, the said Ravindra Prasad for the reasons better known to him has avoided to entered into witness box and substantiate the contention of the complainant. The said discrepancy in the evidence of PW.1 is not repose confidence, as to the real transaction held between complainant and accused. The evidence of PW.1 and documents produced by him is not trustworthy. Hence, reliance cannot be placed on same and held that, accused has committed the offence. As per discussions made supra, the complainant has utterly failed to prove his case beyond the reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt for acquittal.
40. On overall appreciation of the material facts available on record, it discloses that, despite the accused harping on the very claim of the complainant, he fails to demonstrate his very case.
Judgment 34 C.C.No.251/2017 While appreciate the materials available on record, this court has humbly gone through the decision relied by both parties apart from the following decisions.
In the decision reported in ILR 2009 KAR 2331 (B.Indramma V/s. Sri.Eshwar). Wherein, the Hon'ble Court held that:
"Held, when the very factum of delivery of the cheque in question by the accused to the complainant and its receipt by complainant from the accused itself is seriously disputed by the accused, his admission in his evidence that, the cheque in question bares his signature would not be sufficient proof of the fact that, he delivered the said cheque to the complainant and the latter received if from the former".
41. The principle of law laid down in the above decision is applicable to the facts of this case. Merely because, the accused admits that, cheque bares her signature, that, does not mean that, the accused issued cheque in discharge of a legally payable debt.
At this stage, this court also relies upon another decision reported in AIR 2007 NOC 2612 A.P. (G.Veeresham V/s. Shivashankar and another). Wherein, the Hon'ble Court has held as under:
Judgment 35 C.C.No.251/2017 "Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881). S. 138 Dishonour of cheque - Presumptions available to complainant under S. 118 and S. 139 of Act -
Rebuttal of cheque in question was allegedly issued by accused to discharge hand loan taken from complainant. However, no material placed on record by complainant to prove alleged lending of hand loan said fact is sufficient to infer that, accused is liable to rebut presumptions available in favour of complainant under Sections 118 and 139 of Act, Order acquitting accused for offence under S. 138 proper".
42. The principle of law laid down in the above decisions is applicable to the facts of this case. In the case on hand also, as discussed above, the complainant has failed to prove with cogent evidence as to the lending of loan of Rs.1,20,000/- to the accused. Thus, that fact itself is sufficient to infer that, accused is able to rebut presumptions available in favour of complainant under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
43. In this case on hand also, on the lack of the complaint failed to prove the alleged loan transaction, it can gather the probability that, she is not liable to pay Ex.P1 cheque amount of Rs.1,20,000/- and it is not legally recoverable debt. So, the burden is on the complainant to prove strictly with cogent and Judgment 36 C.C.No.251/2017 believable evidence that, the accused has borrowed the cheque amount and she is legally liable to pay the same. Just because, there is a presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, that, will not create any special right to the complainant so as to initiate a proceeding against the drawer of the cheque, who is not at all liable to pay the cheque amount. The accused has taken her defence at the earliest point of time, while record accusation and statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. by way of denial. The evidence placed on record clearly probablize that, complainant has failed to prove that, accused issued the cheque for discharge of liability of Rs.1,20,000/-. Hence, complainant has failed to prove the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
44. From the above elaborate discussions, it very much clear that, the complainant has failed to adduce cogent and corroborative evidence to show that, accused has issued cheque Ex.P1 in discharge of her legally payable debt for valid consideration. Hence, rebutted the legal presumptions under Section 139 and 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act in favour of the accused.
Judgment 37 C.C.No.251/2017
45. The sum and substances of principles laid down in the rulings referred above are that, once it is proved that, cheque pertaining to the account of the accused is dishonoured and the requirements envisaged under Section 138 of (a) to (c) of Negotiable Instruments Act is complied, then it has to be presumed that, cheque in question was issued in discharge of legally recoverable debt. The presumption envisaged under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is mandatory presumption and it has to be raised in every cheque bounce cases. Now, it is settled principles that, to rebut the presumption, accused has to set up a probable defence and she need not prove the defence beyond reasonable doubt.
46. Thus, on appreciation of evidence on record, I hold that, the complainant has failed to prove the case by rebutting the presumption envisaged under Sections 118 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainant has failed to discharge the initial burden to prove his contention as alleged in the complaint. Hence, the complainant has not produced needed evidence to prove that, amount of Rs.1,20,000/- legally recoverable debt. Therefore, since the complainant has failed to discharge the reverse burden, question of appreciating other things and weakness of the accused is not a ground to accept the claim of Judgment 38 C.C.No.251/2017 the complainant in its entirety without the support of the substantial documentary evidence pertaining to the said transaction. The complainant fails to prove his case beyond all reasonable doubt. As discussed above, the complainant has utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Accordingly, I answered the Point Nos.1 and 2 are Negative.
47. Point No.3: In view of my findings on point Nos.1 and 2, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C.
the accused is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
The bail bond and cash security/surety bond of the accused stands cancelled.
(Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 14th day of July - 2020) (SHRIDHARA.M) XXIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
Judgment 39 C.C.No.251/2017
ANNEXURE
List of Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:
PW-1 : E.Ashok List of Exhibits marked on behalf of Complainant:
Ex.P1 : Original Cheque
Ex.P1(a) : Signature of accused
Ex.P2 : Bank endorsement
Ex.P3 : Office copy of legal notice
Ex.P4 : Postal receipt
Ex.P5 : Unserved R.P.A.D cover
Ex.P5(a) : Legal notice at Ex.P5
Exs.P6 & P7 : On demand promissory note and
consideration receipt
Exs.P6(a) & P7(a) : Signatures of accused
Ex.P8 : Private complaint
Ex.P8(a) : Signature of complainant
List of Witnesses examined on behalf of the defence:
DW.1 : Vijayalakshmi List of Exhibits marked on behalf of defence:
Ex.D1 : CC of private complaint and its enclosures in C.C.No.9037/17 Ex.D2 : CC of On demand promissory note and consideration receipt Ex.D2(a) : Signature of Ravikumar.M Ex.D3 : CC of private complaint in C.C.No.1474/46 Exs.D4 & D5 : CC of deposition of Nataraj Nayak Ex.D6 : CC of private complaint in CC No.5459/2019 Ex.D7 : CC of private complaint Ex.D7(a) & D7(b) : CC of On demand promissory note and consideration receipt Ex.D8 : CC of private complaint in PCR No.11572/17 XXIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
Judgment 40 C.C.No.251/2017
14.07.2020.
Comp -
Accd -
For Judgment
Case called out.
Complainant and accused are
absent. No representation from both side
advocates, despite, web-host the case
proceedings and intimate the date of
pronouncement of judgment. Hence, as per
Section 353(6) of Cr.P.C. the following
judgment is pronounced in the open court
vide separate order.
*****
ORDER
Acting under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C.
the accused is acquitted for the offence
punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
The bail bond and cash security/surety bond of the accused stands cancelled.
XXIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.