Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

13. In the instant case the accused has given reply at Ex.P.10, wherein he has denied entire case of the complainant by giving para wise reply interalia has contended in para No.6 and 7 that, he has given alleged instruments as security purpose and he will clear the amounts periodically within a year. It is further contended that, the accused already has paid Rs.2,08,000/- by way of NEFT on 04.12.2020 and another amount of Rs.1,56,000/- on 19.12.2020, in total he has repaid Rs.3,64,000/- and he is due to repay the balance amount of Rs.5,58,000/- to the complainant. Even during the cross-examination of Pw1 he has offered that, he is ready to pay Rs.5,58,000/-. This is the defence put-forth by the accused in the beginning itself. As per this defence the accused is admitting the issuance of cheques from his account and his signatures thereon. Therefore the legal presumptions U/Sec.118 and 139 of N.I. Act shown in favour of the complainant. The burden shifts on the accused to rebut the legal presumptions. In the well known judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Basalingappa vs. Mudibasappa , the Hon'ble Apex court has provided the guidelines such as for rebuttal of the presumptions, the accused shall put forth probable defence and to prove the same by producing cogent, reliable and acceptable evidence, then only the onus shifts on the complainant to prove her case beyond all reasonable doubts. To prove his defence as contended in the reply notice, the accused by name Umesh has entered in the witness box and adduced his oral evidence as DW1 stating that, since 20-25 years he knows the complainant, the complainant has filed this complaint against him for the payment of her money and that he has given reply to the demand notice as per Ex.P.10 and also Ex.D.1. He further stated that in the month of November-2020, the complainant has lent Rs.9,22,000/- to him, out of which he has repaid to her a sum of Rs.3,64,000/-. He deposes that on 04.12.2020 he has deposited Rs.1,04,000/- to the relative of complainant by name Lakshmamma and on the same day he has deposited Rs.1,76,000/- to the bank account of complainant and he has produced his bank account statements at Ex.D.5 and Ex.D.6. Further stated that, the present complaint is filed against him just to get more money from him. In support of his oral evidence he placed on record his bank account statement as per Ex.D.5 and Ex.D.6, the entries made on 04.12.2020 the depicts that the accused has deposited the said amount of Rs.1,04,000/- to the bank account of Lakshmamma and on 19.12.2020 he has paid Rs.1,56,000/- to the complainant vide No.173154. Regarding deposit of these two amounts Pw1 has admitted in her cross-examination. However during the cross-examination of DW1 a new case of Pw1 has been suggested stating that, the accused was suppose to pay investment of the accused, only the said investments amount was repaid to the complainant and not relating to the debt of the present case. In support of this suggestion, the complainant has placed on record some statements of Sri. Sarvamangala Enterprises and Finance which are marked at Ex.P.11 to Ex.P.17. For the said suggestion made to DW1 during cross-examination, he has not clearly or he has not given specific admission. He just gave explanation stating that he might have repaid Rs.1,04,000/- to the account of Lakshmamma and Rs.1,56,000/- to the account of complainant. Since it is not specific and clear admission, the same could not be reliable in evidence against the accused. On careful scrutiny of complaint there is no such pleadings in the complaint. When the accused has specifically took the defence in his reply notice dated Ex.P.10 then the complainant ought to have pleaded in her complaint as to why and how the accused has paid Rs.1,04,000/- and Rs.2,56,000/- to the account of complainant and Lakshmamma. In the absence of such pleadings and oral evidence on record, the improved version and evidence of the complainant relating to the documents at Ex.P.11 to Ex.P.17 is unacceptable. The complainant has also produced one dairy marked at Ex.P.18 regarding some amount marked as Ex.P.18(a). During cross-examination of DW1 the entries made at Ex.P.18a is neither confronted nor brought to the notice of Dw1, therefore the dairy at Ex.P.18 could not be reliable to support the version of complainant. Thus, by considering the oral evidence of Dw1, the material evidence culled out during the cross- examination of Pw1 it can be held that, the accused has put forth probable defence and has proved the same on preponderance probabilities by producing cogent and relaiblabe and acceptable evidence. As per admission of Pw1 when she has admitted that Rs.1,04,000/- and Rs.1,56,000/- has been repaid. Then as per Sec.56 of NI Act the repaid the amount ought to have been deducted by making an endorsement behind the backside of cheques and for the remaining amount the disputed cheques ought to have been presented. Thus from considering the oral and documentary evidence placed on record I am of the considered opinion that the legal presumptions U/Sec.118 and 138 of NI Act rebutted and that the complainant has failed to prove her case beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence, I answered point No.1 in the Negative.