Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

12. As per Ex.P.8, the accused has given reply to the demand notice issued by the complainant. In the reply notice, the accused denied the claim of the complainant by giving para wise reply inter alia contending that, he had a transaction with one Utthaman P.K and while collecting the bid amount, the said Utthaman P.K. has collected two signed blank cheques and one blank letter head as a security. It is further contended that, even after settlement of entire amount five years ago, the said Utthaman P.K. has not returned his signed blank cheques and letter head and thereafter, in this regard, he has filed complaint before jurisdictional police against the said Utthaman P.K on 05.05.2018. He contended that, the complainant is totally stranger to the accused, colluding with Utthaman P.K., one of his blank signed cheque has been misutilized by the complainant by collecting the same from Utthaman P.K. and just to have wrongful gain has filed the present complaint. By this defense of the accused, it clearly goes to show that, the accused has been admitting his issuance of cheque at Ex.P.1 and the signature at therein. Therefore, the statutory presumptions under section 118(a) and 139 of NI Act raised in favour of the complainant. Now, the burden is on the accused to rebut the statutory presumptions and also to establish his defense. The accused neither has cross examined PW.1 nor has led his defense evidence. The evidence of PW.1 unchallenged and uncontroverted. On the other hand, the defense of the accused has contended in the reply notice at Ex.P.8 remains only an allegation and not at all proved either by leading oral evidence of accused or by producing any documentary evidence. Therefore, the accused has utterly failed to bring on record any probable evidence to rebut the statutory presumptions under sections 118(a) & 139 of NI Act.