Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

41. It is material to note that the accused has raised various defenses, one of the primary defenses is that, with respect to the issuance of the cheque, he had borrowed a loan of Rs. 5 lakhs from Mr. Raghupathi Reddy and, as security for the loan, had issued two blank cheques in favor of Mr. Raghupathi Reddy. Despite of repayment of Rs.5 lakhs through account, Mr.Rathupathy Reddy has not returned the security cheques to him, but he has misused those cheques and filed cheque bounce case in his name and another case in his sister's i.e. complainant's name.

44. In his chief-examination the accused has deposed that when he enquried Mr.Rathupathy Reddy about his security cheques, he assured to return the cheques while he vacating the rented house. Thus incumbent upon the accused to be alert to get back his cheques.

45. The accused has taken yet another contention that that Mr.Rathupathy Reddy is the money lender and he used to give money through accused, to various persons by name Mr.Raju, Mr.Vinay, Mrs.Parimala, Mr.Subodh and others that time Mr.Rathupathy Reddy was taking blank signed cheques form those borrowers for security purpose and they are produced at Ex.D1 to 11. But the accused has not established that these cheques were taken by Mr. Rathupathy Reddy in connection with loans given to different persons. None of the alleged borrowers have been examined before the Court to substantiate this defense. Additionally, none of the cheques marked as Ex.D1 to D11 bear the name of Mr. Rathupathy Reddy. Therefore, in the absence of cogent evidence regarding the purported moneylending business of Mr. Rathupathy Reddy or the circumstances under which these cheques were issued, the Court cannot assume that Mr. Rathupathy Reddy was a moneylender and he routinely obtained blank signed cheques from borrowers.

46. It is material to note here that by producing those blank signed cheques accused himself demonstrated before the Court that he is aware that Mr.Rathupathy Reddy may misuse his security cheques, if he is not taken immediate steps to recover his security cheques. Under such circumstances, for the reason that he had close association with Mr.Rathupathy Reddy and knowing his modus operandi, the accused would have been more vigilant and take immediate steps to recover back his security cheques. Despite of having such knowledge that he has not made such endeavour and same creates suspicious about the whole defense that he has issued 2 signed blank cheques to Mr.Rathupathy Reddy and one among them is presented through complainant in the present case.

47. The cheque has been dishonoured for the reason 'funds insufficient'. If Mr.Rathupathy Reddy has not ready to return security cheques the accused could have given stop payment instructions to his banker, no such endeavor is made by him. Before filing this complaint itself there are other criminal cases lodged against Mr.Rathupathy Reddy and complainant of this case and the prospective buyer of the land of complainant by name Mr.Sathish, on the ground that documents are fabricated to sell the property, impersonation ,cheating, when such serious allegations are made against the complainant and Mr.Rathupathy Reddy, at-least that time accused would have been more cautious and take immediate steps to prevent his alleged security cheques from potential misuse. Despite this, the accused remained silent, and such conduct appears highly negligent and unusual. Therefore, his defense of issuance of 2 cheques for security purpose to Mr.Rathupathy Reddy does not transpires the confidence of the Court.