Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8 The onus to prove the issuance of cheque was on the respondent No.1/complainant. To prove its case, he examined himself as CW1 and proved the cheque as Ex.CW1/A, cheque return memo as Ex.CW1/B, notice as Ex.CW1/C, postal receipts as Ex.CW1/D and E and promissory note as Ex.CW1/F. The appellant/ accused also led his evidence by examining the wife of respondent No.1/complainant as DW­1.

9 By leading his evidence, respondent No.1/ complainant has duly established that cheque in question was issued by the appellant/accused in discharge of his liability. On the other hand, it is argued by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant/accused that the loan was taken of Rs.10,000/­ and not of Rs.70,000/­. From the evidence led, the complainant/respondent no.1 has successfully established that the loan was advanced of Rs.70,000/­, but the appellant/accused failed to establish his defence that the loan amount was Rs.10,000/­ and he repaid the same. The only witness examined by the appellant/accused was the wife of respondent No.1/ complainant who had not supported the defence of the appellant/ accused that a loan of Rs. 10,000/­ was given to him and that same was repaid. The complainant in the form of his ocular as well as documentary evidence has duly established that loan of Rs.70,000/­ was advanced to the appellant. No evidence was produced by the appellant/accused to substantiate his defence. 10 It was also case of appellant/accused that the blanks in cheque and promissory note were filled in by respondent No.1/complainant but he did not lead any evidence to substantial his defence, what to say to get them examined from any Handwriting Expert. On the other hand, Respondent no.1/complainant has duly established that the cheque in question and the promissory note were filled and signed by the appellant/accused at the time of taking the loan. He has also established that the said cheque got dishonoured when it was presented for encashment. In the absence of expert's opinion, it can not be said with certainty that any forgery on the cheque and promissory note was made by respondent No.1/ complainant. Appellant/accused was having ample opportunity to prove his defence on this aspect but he had not produced evidence to substantiate his defence that the forgery on the cheque and promissory note was made by the complainant.