Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

15. It is the specific defence of the Accused that, they have denied the claim made by the complainant and also issuance of the cheque towards discharge of the liability in question. It is also specific defence of the Accused that, the complainant is the wife of one Mr. Rathan Kumar Aravind i.e. PW.2 and she was one of the partners along with the Accused No.2 in the Accused No.1 company and she was not taking part in day to day affairs of the said partnership business and the Accused No.2 used to take care of the affairs of the said company and when ever there was requirement any discussions, the husband of the complainant used to be present and whenever there was requirements of funds the husband of the 17 C.C.No9445/2018 J complainant used to take the cheques of the Accused No.1 company's account and the individual accounts of the directors of the said company, in good faith he had given his signed blank cheques of Accused No.1 company's account and several signed blank papers to the husband of the complainant to raise loan for the purpose of the business of business of their company but the complainant has misused his signed blank cheques and his company's account cheques and signed blank papers and filed this false case. Hence on this back ground the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the complainant and Accused has to be examined by the court.

33. It is relevant here to mention that, the Accused No.1 to 3 in order to rebut the presumption available to the complainant U/s.118 and 139 of N.I.Act the Accused No.2 examined as DW.1, in his evidence has stated that, he know the complainant since 2012 and complainant has not paid any amount and has not issued the cheque in dispute to her towards his alleged liability of Rs.11,70,00,000/- as claimed by her in the present case. The Accused No.2/DW.1 further stated that, the complainant is the wife of Mr. Rathan Kumar Aravind and she was one of the directors along with him in the Accused no1. company i.e M/s. Inter Trans Services (I) Pvt. Ltd., and she was not taking part in the day to day affairs of the said company and he used to take care of the affairs of the said company and whenever there were requirements of discussions, the husband of the complainant used to be present and whenever requirements of the funds for the business of the company, the husband of the complainant used to take the cheques of the Accused No.1 company's 59 C.C.No9445/2018 J account and the individual accounts of the partners of the said company and in good faith he had given his signed blank cheque of the Accused No.1 company's account and several signed blank papers to him so as to enable him to raise loan for the purpose of business of the company but the complainant has misused his signed blank cheques and signed blank stamp papers and filed this false case against him.

34. The Accused No.2 in order to substantiate his oral evidence has not produced single piece of document and except his oral self serving statement nothing has been placed before the court. If really the Accused has given his signed blank cheques and signed blank stamp papers to the husband of the complainant to raise loan for the purpose of business of Accused No.1 company and the complainant has raised the loan, definitely the Accused No.2 would have produced the documentary evidence but no such documents have been produced by the Accused. In addition to that, the Accused No.2 during the course of his cross- examination, categorically admitted that, the Ex.P.1 60 C.C.No9445/2018 J might be given to the husband of the complainant for the purpose of securing the loan the said cheque has been issued and the said cheque was collected by PW.2 stating that, he would get the loan from some private finance but no such loan was given and he came to know about misuse of the cheque in question i.e. Ex.P.1 only when he appeared in this case and the account was in active as on the date of cheque and he has received SMS regarding bouncing of cheque in question i.e. Ex.P.1 after receiving SMS he realized that, Ex.P.1 was misused and he had not issued any intimation to his bank for stop payment and he had not enquired either with the complainant or her husband with regard to misuse of cheque even after receiving the intimation from the bank and has not issued any notice either to the complainant or her husband with regard to misuse of Ex.P.1 cheque stating that, the said cheque was not issued towards discharge of ay liability and he has not approached jurisdictional police or court and filed any complaint against the complainant or her husband with regard to misuse of cheque in question and after receiving the notice he realized that, complainant is intending to file 61 C.C.No9445/2018 J complaint against him for the offence U/s.138 of N.I. Act and he have mentioned in reply that, the cheque in question was not issued to the complainant other than that he did not make any averments in the said reply and for the first time in the examination-in- chief he has stated the complainant and her husband collected signed blank cheque, signed blank papers and signed blank sheets of papers. Therefore, the said admissions of the complainant itself goes to show that even though he is aware of the cheque in question was dishonoured when it was presented by the complainant through SMS and even he realized that, Ex.P.1 cheque was misused by the complainant but he did not choose to take any action against the complainant or her husband, hence the conduct of the Accused itself goes to show that, if really the cheque in question was given by the Accused to the husband of the complainant as blank signed cheque and the said cheque has been misused by the husband of the complainant or by the complainant, definitely the Accused would have made an efforts to take action against the complainant or her husband but no such efforts have been made by the Accused ¸in such 62 C.C.No9445/2018 J circumstances an adverse inference can be drawn against the Accused that, the defence taken by the Accused appears to be mere denial in nature and Accused has miserably failed to rebut the presumptions available to the complainant U/s.118a and 139 of N.I. Act.

36. It is also relevant here to mention that, the Accused during the course of his cross-examination has categorically admitted that, he has given many blank cheques to the husband of the complainant and also admitted that, he came to know about the misuse of Ex.P.1 cheque when he received SMS regarding bouncing of cheque in question and even after misuse of cheque he has not entered the complainant or her husband and has not issued any notice either to the complainant or her husband and 64 C.C.No9445/2018 J has not approached jurisdictional police or court and filed any complaint against the complainant or her husband with regard to misuse of cheque in question and for the first time in the chief examination he has stated that, complainant and her husband collected signed blank cheque, papers and sheets from him. Hence, the said categorical admissions of the Accused makes it clear that, the Accused himself admitted that, even after misuse of his cheque in question he did not issue any notice to the complainant or her husband and has not approached jurisdictional police or court and filed complaint against the complainant or her husband about alleged misuse of cheque in question by the complainant, in such circumstances, if really the husband of complainant has collected blank singed cheque of Accused no1. company's account and blank signed stamp papers of Accused No.2 for securing loan to the business of company, in such circumstances the Accused No.2 would have taken action against the complainant either by lodging the complaint before the police or court or atleast issuing notice to the complainant or her husband for return and misuse of his alleged blank signed 65 C.C.No9445/2018 J cheque handed over to him or issuing stop payment instructions to his banker, but no such efforts have been made by the Accused even after receipt of the legal notice by him and after his appearance in this case, therefore except the bare denial of the Accused is not sufficient to hold that, he has rebutted the presumptions available to the complainant U/s.118 and 139 of the N.I. Act. It is also relevant here to mention that, the conduct of the Accused in not taking the action against the complainant for alleged misuse of blank signed cheque of Accused No.1 company's account and blank signed stamp papers of Accused No.2, an adverse inference can be drawn against him that, the Accused No.2 has not initiated any action against the complainant since the cheque in question has been issued by the Accused No.2 to the complainant towards discharge of the liability in question but not for any other purpose. In this regard it is relevant here to refer the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court of India reported in AIR 2018 SC 3601 in a case of T.P.Murugan(dead) Thr. Lrs.V. Bhojan Vs. Posa Nandi, rep. Thr. Lrs. PA holder, T.P. Murugan V. Bhojan, wherein the Hon'ble apex Court held that "Negotiable 66 C.C.No9445/2018 J Instruments Act (26 of 1881) Ss.118, 138, 139 - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption as to enforceable debt- cheques allegedly issued by accused towards repayment of debt- Defence of accused that 10 cheques issued towards repayment of loan back in 1995 - behavior of accused in allegedly issuing 10 blank cheques back in 1995 and never asking their return for 7 years, unnatural - Accused admitting his signature on cheques and pronote, presumption under S.139 would operate against him - Complainant proving existence of legally enforceable debt and issuance of cheques towards discharge of such debt - Conviction, Proper". It is true that, the above principles of law pertains to the case of different set of facts but the proposition of law held by the Hon'ble Apex Court is aptly applicable to the case on hand since in the present case also the accused No.2 has not made any efforts to get return of cheque alleged to have been given to the husband of complainant for securing loan to the business of the firm, under such circumstances, the said unnatural conduct of the accused No.2 in non taking of action, an adverse 67 C.C.No9445/2018 J inference can be drawn against the accused No.2 that, the cheque in question issued by the accused No.2 towards discharge of the liability and presumption U/s.139 of N.I.Act would operate against him, as he has admitted the signature and cheque in question is belongs to the account o the Accused No.1 company. In another decision reported in 2015 (4) KCCR 2881 (SC) in the case of T. Vasanthakumar Vs. Vijayakumari wherein the Hon'ble Apex court held that, " NEGOTIABLE ISNTRUCEMTNS Act, 1881- Section 138 and 139