Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

9. As per the complaint averments, in the above referred four cases, the complainant has claimed on 6/9/2012 advanced Rs.14 Lakhs hand loan to the accused. In proof of advancement of huge amount of Rs.14 Lakhs, except the contents of affidavit filed by P.W.1 in lieu of his examination-in-chief, there is absolutely no other documentary or oral evidence. It is further admitted the complainant did not insist the accused to execute any documents in proof of borrowing loan as on the date of transaction. Therefore, at this juncture, the question arises for determination is whether any prudent man may advance Rs.14 Lakhs without obtaining any documents from the borrower in proof of the transaction. Even if it is presumed the accused had issued in all four cheques marked as per Ex.P.1 in all the above referred cases, it is not a document in proof of advancement of loan. The cheques produced by the complainant can be considered as a document through which the accused alleged to have agreed to make repayment of the loan. The repayment of the loan through cheques is one of the modes of repayment. As per the evidence of the complainant, the accused alleged to have agreed to repay the loan amount on 28/9/2012. In between the date of alleged transaction 6/9/2012 till the date of cheque, there is only 7 Common Judgment in CC.Nos:10305/2013, 10306/2013, 10317/2013 and 10319/2013 a time gap of 22 days. Even though the complainant has claimed he had advanced Rs.14 Lakhs hand loan to the accused, the total cheque amount in all the above referred cases comes to Rs.14.10 Lakhs. Therefore, the evidence of the complainant regarding total loan amount and why the accused had issued cheque for Rs.14.10 Lakhs and the explanation forwarded by the complainant in this regard is unbelievable.

11. As per the evidence, the complainant claimed he is doing Real Estate business and his monthly income is Rs.25,000/- to 30,000/-. As per the admission of the complainant, he used to spend Rs.15,000/- to 20,000/- per month for his family expenses and therefore out of his savings of Rs.10,000/- per month, it is impossible to advance Rs.14 Lakhs hand loan. In addition, the complainant has specifically admitted he is not an Income tax assessee. For the assessment year 2013-14, an income of Rs.14 Lakhs was a taxable income. Since the complainant has not paid income tax, the legal inference to be drawn is that, for the financial year 2012-13 the income of the complainant was not exceeding income tax limits. In order to prove the financial capacity to advance Rs.14 Lakhs hand loan, the complainant could have produced his Bank account extract or any other documentary evidence. In the absence, 9 Common Judgment in CC.Nos:10305/2013, 10306/2013, 10317/2013 and 10319/2013 under normal circumstances no prudent man will keep Rs.14 Lakhs cash in his house without making any profitable investment. For the aforesaid reasons the complainant has failed to prove he had ready cash of Rs.14 Lakhs as on 6/9/2012 and advanced the said amount to the accused as hand loan.

15. The accused has initiated criminal action against the complainant and Suraj Kumar and as per his complaint, a case was registered as per Ex.D.2 in C.C.No:10305/2013 for the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of Karnataka Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act 2004 and Section 420 of I.P.C. Even though the accused was aware blank signed cheques are in the custody of Suraj Kumar, he did not issue any notice calling upon him to return those cheques. He had also not given any intimation to the Bank for stop payment in the event those cheques are presented for encashment. By producing Ex.D.3 and Ex.D.4 Bank account extract, the accused has proved his financial position and at no point of time the accused has maintained more than Rs.3 Lakhs. In the above circumstances, the accused was having financial necessity to borrow Rs.14 Lakhs and the purpose for which he had borrowed the said loan is not made out from the evidence of the complainant. Any prudent man before advancement of loan ascertains the purpose for which the accused is borrowing loan and his financial capacity to repay the said amount within stipulated 13 Common Judgment in CC.Nos:10305/2013, 10306/2013, 10317/2013 and 10319/2013 period. In the case on hand, the evidence of the complainant is absolutely silent regarding these aspects.

"The accused in a trial under Section 138 of the Act has two options. He can either show that consideration and debt did not exist or that under the particular circumstances of the case the non-existence of consideration and debt is so probable that a prudent man ought to suppose that no consideration and debt existed. To rebut the statutory presumption an accused is not expected to prove his defence beyond reasonable doubt as is expected of the complainant in a criminal trial. The accused may adduce direct evidence to prove that the note in question was not supported by consideration and that there was no debt or liability to de discharged by him. However, the Court need not insist in every case that the accused should disprove the non- existence of consideration and debt by leading direct evidence because the existence of negative evidence is neither possible nor contemplated. At the same time, bare denial of the passing of consideration and existence of debt, apparently does not serve the purpose of the accused. Something which is probable has to be brought on record for