Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

18. Thus, securitizing the evidence of C.W.-1, Raju Thakur, i.e. the petitioner himself, it is evident that he is involved in the business of money lending and for taking blank cheque from the people and had obtained blank cheques from the opposite party no.2, Manorama Devi, but has also Priya Sharma, Nutan Devi. As per his own case, he has given friendly loan of Rs. 2,30,000/- to the opposite party no.2, Manorama Devi and friendly loan of Rs. 3,80,000/- to Priya Sharma and has also obtained cheque from Nutan Devi, which is kept in his house. Thus CW-1, Raju Thakur appears to be the Moneylender and has obtained blank cheques from the several ladies including opposite party no. 2.

19. So far as the defence evidence is concerned, D.W.-1, Manorama Devi is the opposite party no. 2 in this case herself, and has stated during her evidence that the petitioner used to give money on interest to several ladies namely Nutan Devi, Priya Sharma, Savita Devi, Vanmalai Tudu and several other ladies including the opposite party no. 2 and he used to take blank cheque in their respective signatures on the assurance that whenever they will pay the money, then he will return the cheque. She has further stated that she has taken only Rs. 20,000/- from the complainant and for which the complainant had obtained a blank cheque with her signature in lieu of the same and the cheque was misused by the complainant by instituting the false case against her. She has further stated that she has returned the said Rs. 20,000/- with interest to the complainant-petitioner and the complainant has assured her to return the said cheque, but it was not returned to her. She has also stated that the complainant- petitioner had instituted several cases under the provisions of N. I. Act against the ladies namely Nutan Devi, Priya Sharma, Savita Devi and Vanmali Tudu and other ladies.

20. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of D.W.-1, Manorama Devi, it is evident that the petitioner is involved in moneylending and used to give money on interest and in lieu of the same, he used to take blank cheque from the ladies and the opposite party no. 2 had taken names of some of the ladies Nutan Devi, Priya Sharma, Savita Devi and Vanmali Tudu and other ladies.

21. D.W.-2 is Indu Devi and she stated that the complainant used to give money on interest to several women of her muhulla and used to obtained blank cheques with her signature in lieu of the same with the assurance that upon returning the money, he will return the said cheque. She further stated that opposite party no.2 had taken friendly loan of Rs. 20,000/- from the complainant and in lieu of the same, the complainant had obtained a blank cheque with the signature of the opposite party no. 2, which was misused by him by filing this case. She further stated that opposite party no. 2 had returned the said Rs. 20,000/- to the complainant with interest, but her cheque was not returned on the ground that the same is missing in his house. She also stated that the complainant had instituted several cases through different person upon the women of her muhulla and opposite party no.2 had already returned the amount to the opposite party no. 2.

36. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of John K. Abraham v. Simon C. Abraham, reported in 2014 (1) East C.C. 366 : (2014) 2 SCC 236, at Para 8, 9 and 12 as under:-

"Para 8:- Keeping the above factors in mind, when we examine the judgment impugned in this appeal, we find that the High Court committed a serious illegality in reversing the judgment of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. While reversing the judgment of the trial court, what weighed with the learned Judge of the High Court was that in the Section 313 CrPC questioning, it was not the case of the appellant that a blank signed cheque was handed over to his son and that even in the cross-examination it was not suggested to PW 1 that a blank cheque was issued. The High Court was also persuaded by the fact that the appellant failed to send any reply to the lawyer's notice, issued by the respondent. Based on the above conclusions, the High Court held that the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act could be easily drawn and that the appellant failed to rebut the said presumption. On that single factor, the learned Judge of the High Court reversed the judgment of the trial Judge and convicted the appellant.