Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The accused has also contended that, the complainant without any supporting documents and cogent materials brought the false case. The complainant herself stated that, she has paid amount to the landlady by name Dr.Beena Roopak and she has not paid any money to the accused and there is no monetary transaction between her and accused. Both have colluded each other and misused his cheques and other blank signed papers given to the landlady and brought the false case for making illegal claim from him. Hence, he is not liable to pay the amount covered under the cheque to the complainant. The amount claimed by the Judgment 14 C.C.No.4357/2018 complainant with the questioned cheque is not the legally enforceable debt. The complainant got misused his cheques and other papers given to his landlady. The transaction alleged that, it was towards some Hotel transaction is not true and in that way the complaint is require to be dismissed from innocent charges made against the accused. Hence, he prayed for acquittal.

21. It is pertinent to note that, whatever the defence taken by the accused as to handed over those cheques or any other signed blank papers to his landlady as a security definitely, it should be revealed in the previous suit instituted by him as per Ex.D1. On meticulous perusal of the Ex.D1 it made clear that, the said suit was filed by him on 19.08.2017. The questioned cheque bares the date:22.09.2017 which means, prior to the complainant Judgment 19 C.C.No.4357/2018 present the questioned cheque for encashment on 22.09.2017, the accused already instituted the suit at Ex.D1. Therefore, it made clear that, if at all, it was his serious defence made against the landlady Dr.Beena Roopak, it is him to narrate those allegations in the pleading which compel the accused to institute bare injunction suit. When the said landlady if at all, by hold his signed blank cheque or signed blank paper as security definitely, he must mind those factum much earlier, at least, he could have pleaded in Ex.D1, but the same is lapse. Therefore, it is so difficult to accept the contention of the accused that, he gave signed blank cheque includes questioned cheque at Ex.P1 and signed blank papers to Landlady by name Dr.Beena Roopak. From the point of previous statement given by the accused by way of pleading the facts and circumstances which compelled him to initiate proceedings against the landlady definitely, those factum needs to be plead, but for the reasons better known to him, he not did so. At least, on the subsequent hearing date, if he apprehended about his misuse of signed blank cheques and signed blank paper, definitely, he had an opportunity to insert those factum in his pleading by way of amendment, but he did not do so. Therefore, whatever the defence raised by the accused in the present case by way of production of Ex.D1, it does not suffice Judgment 20 C.C.No.4357/2018 his probable defence in rebut the statutory presumption as well as the facts and circumstances narrated by the complainant.

24. First of all, the accused has failed to made mentioned in the pleading of original suit referred supra that, the signed blank cheque and blank signed paper taken by the landlady- Dr.Beena Roopak, which includes the cheque at Ex.P1 and they have colluded each other and filed the present case, definitely, the accused by way of filing Ex.D1 suit could have cautioned the landlady to avoid misuse of his own security documents, if it was true. Since, he not pleaded it needs to draw the inference that, since accused not pleaded those factum was not disputed earlier and for the sake of defence the accused in the present case has raised as such, therefore, much reliance without any base cannot placed on the evidence of DW.1, as to he handed over those signed blank cheques and signed blank paper to the then landlady. On going through the defence taken by the accused in Judgment 22 C.C.No.4357/2018 his affidavit evidence, it does not revealed any other specific grounds, under which compelling circumstances he gave questioned cheque to the then landlady by name Dr.Beena Roopak and she colluded with the complainant had filed the false case against the accused. In that regard noting has elicited from the mouth of the PW.1 to support the defense of the accused.

25. That apart, the accused also pleaded in the affidavit evidence that, when he vacate the Gym premises, the landlady not let him to taken out his instruments and stated, she would return Gym equipments, signed blank cheques and signed blank paper to the accused, after he settled the dues. Despite, he made several follows, she not returned the same. If at all, as he contended in his affidavit evidence, he quit from the rented premises definitely, it is him to taken back his Negotiable Instruments or the Gym equipments along with the signed blank paper by clear her dues. If at all, definitely, he quit from the rented premises not returned those document to the accused definitely, he could have initiate necessary legal action compelling her to return the Negotiable Instruments in order to avoid misuse. In that regard, he not brought the said landlady as to prove that, she withheld those documents and equipments and informed him that, it was misplaced. In order to avoid to brought the landlady before Judgment 23 C.C.No.4357/2018 this court of law, the accused has not produced any satisfactory evidence or grounds to avoid his responsibility.