Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. Learned Trial Court held that the statement of the complainant proved the issuance of the cheque. There is a presumption attached to the cheque that it was issued in discharge of the legal liability for valid consideration, and the burden is upon the accused to rebut the presumption. The version of the accused that Amarjeet was the LIC agent who was introduced by him to the complainant was not proved. The record from the LIC office was not summoned to establish this fact. The accused admitted his signature on the cheque and failed to explain why the cheque was issued by him. The accused is proprietor of Kaushal Handloom Handicraft and Allied Industry and would be aware of the consequences of handing over the signed cheque to any person.

30. Therefore, the Court has to start with the presumption that the cheque was issued in discharge of legal liability, and the burden is upon the accused to prove the contrary.

31. The accused stated that he introduced the complainant to Amarjeet Singh, an LIC agent. The complainant and other women obtained a policy from Amarjeet Singh. The complainant and other persons deposited the amount in the LIC office. They deposited some instalments and failed to deposit the remaining instalments subsequently. The policy lapsed due to non-payment.

32. The complainant denied in her cross-examination that the accused had introduced her to the LIC agent. A denied suggestion does not amount to any proof, and learned Courts below had rightly held that the defence taken by the accused that he had introduced the complainant to Amarjeet was not established by this suggestion.

33. The accused did not summon any record from the LIC office to disprove the statement made by the complainant that he is an LIC agent. He did not examine Amarjeet, who was claimed to be the LIC agent and who had invested the money of the complainant and other persons in the LIC policies; therefore, the learned Courts below had rightly discarded this version.