Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

- "It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque, of the nature referred to in section 138, for the discharge, in whole or in part, or any debt or other liability." A combined reading of above said sections raises a presumption in favour of the holder of the cheque that he has

13 Judgment C.C.18575­2017 received the same for discharge in whole or in part of any debt or other liability.

14. No doubt, the said presumptions of law are rebuttable in nature. The accused can take probable defence in the scale of preponderance of probability to rebut the presumption available to the complainant. Let me examine whether the accused has successfully rebutted the said presumptions of law. The accused has specifically denied the borrowing of loan of Rs.2,50,00,000/- from the complainant and issuance of cheques in question for repayment of said alleged loan amount. The accused has put forth his defence that the, complainant has contested MLA election in the Andra Pradesh and she asked him to arrange election fund. Therefore on her request he issued Ex.P.1 to 8 cheques for the purpose of election found. The complainant has misused the said cheques to file a present case. The accused also questioned financial capacity of the complaint to lend such huge amount the relevant point of time. The accused specifically denied the executing Ex.P.15 to 22 D.P. Notes and Ex.P.14 MOU. The accused contended that Ex.P.1 to 8 cheques were not issued for discharge of any debt or liability as such section 138 of NI Act is not applicable to Ex.P.1 to 8 cheques .

17. In order to discharge said burden the accused led defence evidence by examining himself as DW-1 and got exhibited himself as DW-1 and got exhibited three documents as Ex.D.1 to 3. Ex.D.1 is the internet copy of the candidate to profile of the complainant. Ex.D.2 is the the copy of the affidavit filed by the complainant 19 Judgment C.C.18575­2017 regarding her assets and liability while filing nomination for 2014 MLA election in Andra Pradesh and Ex.D.3 is the copy of the Board Evaluation report regarding the AARA infratel Ltd., The defence counsel cross examined PW-1 to elicit admissions from her mouth in support of the defence of the accused. During the chief examination the accused denied the borrowing of loan of Rs.2,50,00,000/- from the complainant and execution of DP notes. Ex.P.15 to 22 and MOU Ex.P.14 as well as letter Ex.P.13. He further deposed that for election fund he issued Ex.P.1 to 8. During the cross-examination the accused admitted that the complainant is financially well and complainant and her husband are carrying real estate business and they are having companies and other source of income. He further admitted that during the year 2016-17 he was residing the address shown in the complaint and was receiving communication in the said address. The accused has denied his signature in the vakalath filed by his counsel. He denied the suggestion that he has executed Ex.P.15 to 22 in favour of complainant. The accused also denied his signature found in the certificate produced by him under section 65 (B) of Indian Evidence Act. He admitted that Ex.P.1 to 8 belongs to him and he issued said cheques to complainant. He denied the 20 Judgment C.C.18575­2017 suggestion that, he has issued Ex.P.13 reply notice and execute Ex.P.14 Memorandum of understanding in favour of the complainant. Thereafter, the accused has failed to tender himself for further cross examination. Hence, his evidence was discarded vide order dated:20.02.2022. Therefore, the chief-examination of the accused is no value in the eye of law since, he has failed to tender himself for further cross-examination.

21. During the cross-examination of PW-1 the accused has disputed the financial capacity of the complainant. But during his cross examination the accused unequivocally admitted that the complainant is financially well. The document produced by the accused that is affidavit filed by the complainant at the time of filing nomination for MLA election also disclose that the complainant was financially capable to lend Rs.2,50,00,000/- at the relevant point of time. Hence, I am of the opinion that the accused 24 Judgment C.C.18575­2017 has failed to rebut the presumption envisaged under section 118 & 139 of NI Act by raising probable defence.