Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

32. It is further contended that the accused has not disputed the issuance of cheque and her signature on the cheque including service of legal notice. But, the accused has taken a defence that she has availed a loan of Rs.1 lakh only in the year 2017 and she has already repaid the said loan out of PF amount in the year 2017- 18 and she has issued the cheque in question towards the security purpose and in spite of repayment of loan and in spite of demand for return the cheque, the complainant hasfailed to return the cheque and misused the cheque and therefore, she has lodged the complaint before the Jayanagar Police station as per Ex.D.1 and the police have issued endorsement vide Ex.D.2 and the complainant has also given statement as per Ex.D.3 and therefore, she is not liable to pay any amount to the C.C.No.5692/2019 complainant, but the accused has not proved her defence before the Court and she has not taken any further action against the complainant for misuse of cheque, but the complainant has proved the guilt against the accused and hence, the accused is liable for conviction for the offence punishable U/s.138 of N.I.Act.

48. It is pertinent to note here that if really the accused has availed loan of Rs.1 lakh only and she has issued the cheque in question for security purpose and if really the accused has repaid loan and the complainant has misused the cheque in question, then the accused could have definitely replied the notice issued by the C.C.No.5692/2019 complainant. But she has not done so. It is not the defence of the accused that notice has not been served on her. On the other hand, DW-1 has admitted about the issuance of legal notice and also its service. But she did not choose to reply the notice.

50. It is also pertinent to note here that till the presentation of cheque and its dishonour and issuance of legal notice, the accused has been kept quite for all C.C.No.5692/2019 these days without taking any steps against the complainant for misuse of cheque. It is only after presentation of cheque for encashment and it is only after dishonour of cheque for want of sufficient funds in the account of the accused and it is only after issuance of legal notice and service of legal notice, the accused has lodged a complaint against the complainant before Jayanagar Police Station who have recorded the statement of complainant and closed the case. No explanation as such forthcoming in this regard for delay. In the absence of such an explanation an adverse inference has to be drawn against the defence taken by the accused. Therefore, only on the basis of evidence of DW-1 and documents at Ex.D.1 to D.3, it cannot be inferred or come to the conclusion that the accused has availed Rs.1 lakh only and issued the cheque in question towards the security purpose and the accused has already repaid the loan and the complainant has misused the cheque.

C.C.No.5692/2019 Because, it is now well settled position of law that even cheque issued for security purpose also comes under the concept of other liability and therefore, the accused is liable to pay the amount to the complainant U/s.138 of N.I.Act.

53. Therefore, the arguments of the learned counsel for the accused that the accused has availed loan of Rs.1 lakh only and issued the cheque in question towards the security purpose and the accused has already repaid loan of Rs.1 lakh to the complainant, but the complainant failed to return the cheque and misused cheque by filing complaint and the accused has raised a probable defence and also proved the same before the Court by adducing oral evidence of DW-1 and by producing documentary evidence at Ex.D.1 to D.3, but the complainant has failed to establish the charge against the accused and therefore, the accused is entitled an order of acquittal is not sustainable under law and therefore, cannot be accepted and the decisions cited in this regard are also not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case.