Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. The accused took a defence that he borrowed Rs. 5.000/- only from Southern Finance Company, Guntur in the year 1991. The said company being managed by the complainant obtained his signatures on blank promissory notes, blank papers and two blank cheques as collateral security for payment of the amount of Rs. 5.000/- and kept them in the custody of the complainant. The said amount of Rs. 5.000/- was paid by the complainant to him after getting the cheque for an amount of Rs. 12.000/-encashed from the banker of the complainant and took away the balance amount of Rs. 7,000/- to give an impression that the accused drew Rs. 12.000/- by way of cheque. The accused repaid the entire amount due to the said Southern Finance Company, Guntur, together with interest, as agreed and demanded for return of the blank promissory notes, one blank paper and two blank cheques. Though the complainant promised to return, failed to do so. The complainant taking advantage of the possession of the blank promissory notes, blank paper and two blank cheques, created Ex. P-1 cheque bearing No. 0697889 and managed to get an endorsement 'account closed' and filed a complaint with a view to cause wrongful loss to the accused and to have wrongful gain for himself. The further defence of the accused was that the complainant made over one blank pronote and blank cheque bearing No. 0697890 to a fictitious person by name G. Ravindra Babu, got issued a notice through the said fictitious person alleging that he executed promissory note on 25-5-1991 and a cheque was issued in favour of the said Ravindra Babu on 26-12-1993 for Rs. 81,000/- in full discharge of the debt and the same was returned unpaid on presentation with an endorsement 'insufficient funds'. The complainant, being a moneylender, played the entire drama with a view to have wrongful gain and to cause wrongful loss to him.

19. A lengthy cross-examination was done to P.W. 1 to discredit his evidence regarding the genuineness of the enforceable debt and Ex. P-l cheque. In cross-examination P.W. 1 stated that he might have advanced loan to four persons and those persons were due to discharge the debts and prior to those transactions also he lent amounts to others. He issued notices to some of the defaulters and he is not maintaining any accounts, and he is not an income-tax assessee at the time of lending money. He used to obtain promissory notes from the borrowers. If the borrowers are literates, he used to obtain pronotes in their handwriting, if not, he used to get the pronotes scribed through others. He knows the accused through P.W. 4. The accused borrowed money from him on two or three occasions and repaid the same. He has not filed any civil suit against the accused on the basis of the pronote executed by him. He got issued a notice demanding the repayment of the amount before he issued the cheque. He has not filed the promissory note executed by the accused in the Court. As on 10-11-1989 the interest accrued on the principal amount was Rs. 35.000/-. The accused got the body of the cheque typed on a type machine, subscribed his signature and gave it to him. On the date of issuing of the cheque, he did not verify whether the accused closed the account. The accused borrowed the amount for purchase of a house site. He could not produce the promissory note since it was misplaced and gave a complaint to Peddakakani Police Station in that connection. He carried the pronote with him to hand over the same to the advocate at Guntur for filing a suit. As his advocate was not available, he went to Peddakakani to attend his personal work and lost the pronote during transit at about 10 a.m. Immediately, he gave a complaint to Peddakakani Police Station. He denied a suggestion that the accused never borrowed any amount from him and no amount was due to him from the accused. He denied a further suggestion that P.W. 4 was unofficially managing Southern Finance Company and he was an unofficial partner in the said firm. He denied a further suggestion that the accused borrowed only Rs. 12.000/-from Southern Finance Company in the year 1991, that he issued a cheque for Rs. 22.000/- to the accused and after withdrawal, Rs. 12.000/- only was paid to the accused, that he and P.W. 4 obtained two blank pronotes, two blank cheques and two blank papers with signatures of the accused. He denied a further suggestion that the accused repaid the amount to Southern Finance Company and that the accused did not issue Ex. P-l cheque in his name. He denied a further suggestion that taking advantage of two blank cheques and two promissory notes taken by Southern Finance Company, P.W. 4 and himself created this debt covered by these cases with a view to have wrongful gain and to cause wrongful loss to the accused. In order to suppress the truth, he created the story of losing promissory note at Peddakakani and obtained the false endorsement from the bank. He denied a further suggestion that the accused issued the cheque leaf of Ex. P-1 in the year 1991 to Southern Finance Company as security and it was never given by the accused to him as alleged by the prosecution.

23. The accused did not explain whether there was any practice of the complainant obtaining blank signed promissory notes, blank signed cheques and blank signed papers on the earlier transactions also and what were the compelling circumstances, which made him to sign on so many blank papers. The accused did not suggest to any of the prosecution witnesses whether he borrowed any amount previously from Southern Finance Company represented by P.W. 4 and whether there was a practice of taking signatures on blank papers and blank cheques at the time of lending money to him or other borrowers.

38. After making the above observations, the learned Sessions Judge found the accused not guilty of the offence under Section 138 read with 142 of the Act.

39. The complainant, gave the date of borrowing money by the accused. He pleaded that the accused executed a demand promissory note for the amount borrowed by him agreeing to repay the same as and when demanded. The accused was in the habit of taking money from P.W. 1 and repaying it with interest. The accused could not elicit any information from any of the prosecution witnesses that he gave blank signed cheques either to P.W. 1 or P.W. 4. His defence that when he borrowed Rs. 5,000/-frorn Southern Finance Company, the blank pronote, blank cheques and blank papers with his signatures were taken for a debt of Rs. 5,000/-. There was no necessity for anybody to take so many documents regarding the said loan transaction. The accused could not suggest to any of the witnesses whether there were anybody with him at the time of alleged borrowing of Rs. 5.000/-. The learned Sessions Judge observed that since the complainant failed to produce the original demand promissory note, there is a doubt regarding the genuineness of the debt allegedly taken by the accused from P.W. 1.