Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14. Defense of the accused is as follows:

He was working as a priest in Shanimahathma Temple near Banashankari. Said temple is owned by one Mr.Jayannagowda. In 2016 he has lost his cheque and other documents. After lapse of 15 days, from the date of loosing those cheque and documents, one Mr.Chandrashekar Shetty called him and demanded Rs.30 lakhs to give back those documents. Mr.Chandrashekar Shetty has threatened that he should leave the job of priest in the temple stating that he intends to appoint another person in his place. Further accused contends that that time he went to Kumara Swamy layout police station to give the complaint, but they have denied to take complaint. As such he filed private complaint before 44th ACJM Court, Bengaluru about loosing his 6 to 7 cheques and other documents. Among those lost cheques, the disptued cheque also included. Based on the said complaint, FIR was registered and same is produced here. Thereafter, complainant has filed this false case stating that he has given Rs.28 lakhs to him and also given false evidence in this case. The complainant has also filed another case in CC.No.32833/2018 against him before 30th ACJM Court. Hence prays to acquit him from this case.

18. Combined reading of above said sections raises a presumption in favour of the holder of the cheque that he has received the same for discharge in whole or in part of any debt or other liability. However, it is settled principle of law that the presumption available u/s 139 NI Act can be rebutted by the accused by raising a probable defense.

19. The complainant has been stepped into witness box and got examined as PW.1 and he has reiterated the contents of the complaint in his chief-examination. During cross-examination by the counsel for the accused he has deposed that he was working in Mangaluru Chemicals and got retired. He admits that accused has filed PCR No.1705/2017 against him based on which FIR in Cr.No.59/2017 has been registered. He deposed that police have filed 'B' report against the said complaint. He denied the suggestion of the counsel for the accused that he threatened the accused that he had found his documents near the temple and demanded money to return them. He denied that time the accused has given a private complaint to the Court. He denied that the accused has also given a police complaint before the Commissioner. He denied that after the accused lodged a private complaint, he has presented the disputed cheque which was one among the lost cheques of the accused.

27. He deposed that he has helped the complainant to get the loan of Rs.30 lakhs form the co-operative society. He deposed that in his presence the complainant has given Rs.28 lakhs to the accused. The remaining suggestions of the counsel for the accused are denied by him.

28. Percontra, the accused stepped into witness box and got examined as DW.1 and he has deposed that he was working as a priest in Shanimahathma Temple near Banashankari. Said temple is owned by Mr.Jayannagowda. In 2016 he has lost his cheque and other documents. After lapse of 15 days from the date of loosing those cheque and documents one Mr.Chandrashekar Shetty called him and demanded Rs.30 lakhs to give back those documents. Mr.Chandrashekar Shetty has threatened him that he shall leave the job of priest in the temple and he recommends some other person to the said job. That time he went to Kumara Swamy police station to give the complaint, but they have denied to take complaint. As such he filed private complaint before 44th ACJM Court, Bengaluru about loosing his 6 to 7 cheques and other documents. Among those lost cheques, the disputed cheque also included. Based on the said complaint, FIR was registered and same is produced here. Thereafter, complainant has filed this false case stating that he has given Rs.28 lakhs to him and also given false evidence in this case. The complainant has also filed another case in CC.No.32833/2018 against him before 30th ACJM Court. Hence he prays to acquit him.

39. Therefore, as per Sec.118 and 139 of NI Act initial presumption has to drawn infavour of the complainant that cheque was issued in discharge of legally enforceable debt. The burden lies on the accused to rebut the said initial presumption on the scale of preponderance of probabilities.

40. To rebut the said presumption the accused has cross-examined PW.1 at length on different dates and taken various contentions. First and foremost defense of the accused is that he has lost his cheques and other documents in December 2016 and that lost cheques have been misused by the complainant and false case is filed.