Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

13. In order to attract the offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act, the complainant is firstly C.C.NO.30238/2023 required to prove the existence of legally enforceable debt/liability, for which cheque came to be issued. The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that from the evidence placed on record, the fact that the accused is one of the surety to Smt.Vedavathi.B. After taking money from the complainant, the subscriber became a defaulter. After the repeated request made by the complainant, the subscriber and the accused have not paid any amount to the complainant. Further argued that the accused towards discharge of the said payment, he had issued the cheque-Ex.P.1 in favour of the complainant. He further argued that the accused has not denied Ex.P.1 being his cheque drawn on his account. When the signature is not disputed, the presumption under section 139 N.I.Act is to be drawn in favour of the complainant. The accused has failed to elicit anything in the cross examination of P.W.1 to disbelieve the said evidence. The defence have failed to rebut the presumption under section 139 N.I.Act. Further argued that the accused has failed to produce any believable evidence that he had issued the blank cheque in favour of the complainant for the purpose of security and also why he has not returned back the same is not clear. He further argued that the accused has failed to produce oral as well as documentary evidence. Further argued that under section 139 of N.I.Act, there is a presumption that the cheque have been issued for discharge of legally enforceable C.C.NO.30238/2023 debt/liability. In the present case, the accused has not disputed Ex.P.1 being his cheque drawn on his account. The said presumption is available to the complainant.

17. He further argued that the complainant claiming Rs.1,40,000/-. It is further argued that the evidence placed before this court clearly shows that the C.C.NO.30238/2023 complainant in order to make illegal monetary gain has presented the blank cheque given as security, by filing up the cheque, and for the purpose of this case he has created documents and no transaction has been carried out between the complainant and the accused as alleged in the complaint. Hence, the accused proves that the cheque was issued as security and not to discharge any legally enforceable debt/liability. For offence under section 138 of N.I.Act to attract, the accused must have issued the cheque to discharge any legally enforceable debt/liability. But in the present case, since there is no due amount from the accused thus there lies no legally enforceable debt. Also the accused has successfully managed to rebut the evidence of the complainant with detailed cross examination, thereby rebutting the presumption under section 139. Further argued that on the date of presentation of the cheque, the accused was not in due of Rs.1,40,000/-. The complainant has not produced any material to show that when the subscriber defaulted monthly installment before presentation of the cheque. Thus the complainant failed to prove that the accused had issued the subject cheque for a sum of Rs.1,40,000/-. The complainant has misused the cheque obtained from the accused issued for security at the time of bid of the chit. Therefore, issuing the subject cheque by the accused is far away from truth.

20. In the case on hand the very liability of the accused to pay an amount to the complainant is seriously disputed. The accused has contended that he had issued the blank cheque in favour of the complainant for the purpose of security. Further he has contended that the complainant misused the security cheque and filed this false case. He denies any amount being due by him. He also denies issuance of the cheque for repayment of the amount on 07.08.2023.

21. To prove the factum of the case the complainant produced oral evidence of PW.1 and produced Ex.P.1 to 15 only. The documents produced by the complainant does not disclose that the subscriber and the accused is due of Rs.1,40,000/- as on the date of issuance of the cheque. In the said circumstances the complainant required to prove the very due amount by the accused and how an amount of Rs.1,40,000/- is still due. The complainant's have examined its Director/Foreman as PW.1. In his evidence has repeated the contentions taken by the complainant in the complaint. In all 15 documents are produced at Ex.P.1 to 15. The accused has denied issuance of the cheque-Ex.P.1 in favour of the C.C.NO.30238/2023 complainant for discharge any legally enforceable debt/due. Therefore, it is necessary to discuss the evidence regarding the due amount by the accused to the complainant and the said amount still due from the accused. Since the complainant claims that the accused in order to repayment of debt/due had issued the cheque-Ex.P.1 on 07.08.2023, the complainant is firstly required to produce evidence in this regard. But as above discussed no material is placed on record to established the said facts by producing the books of account, credit and statement of payment and other related documents. So also though the company maintained record regarding the amount due by the subscriber no such material is produced in this case. How the amount of Rs.1,40,000/- is due from the subscriber and what is interest amount as on the date of issuance of the cheque has not been properly explained. Because the complainant have not shown what was the amount was due from the subscriber and how this figure came to be arrived as still due from the subscriber. In this case the complainant have produce the chit ledger as per Ex.P.6. On perusal of the same it indicate that the subscriber only due of Rs.41,024/-. Further as on the date of the presentation of the cheque the subscriber was not in due as mentioned in the cheque. Further the complainant have not produced any material to show that when the subscriber defaulted monthly installments and what is the interest C.C.NO.30238/2023 is calculated. When the subscriber was not in due as mentioned in the cheque as on the date of presentation of the cheque, then question of issuance of the cheque- Ex.P.1 on 07.08.2023 by the accused in favour of the complainant does not arise at all.

23. Moreover the contention by the complainant and their case it is reveals that the accused is one of the surety to Smt.Vedavathi.B, the said subscriber subscribed chit group amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. The subscriber has successfully bidding the chit and had received the prized amount from the complainant. Further the accused is well know to the complainant. Further the subscriber and the accused had became a defaulter in repayment of the said amount. After repeated request the accused for repayment of the said amount had issued the cheque in question in favour of the complainant and assured that the said cheque would be honored on its presentation. Further from the evidence produced by the complainant the very fact C.C.NO.30238/2023 that the accused is a surety and in order to repayment of due amount the accused had issued the cheque in question. But the complainant have not proved by any reliable evidence. The exact amount still due by the subscriber is not clearly forthcoming. Further the complainant have failed to produce any documents to due amount from the subscriber. So also the cheque being issued for the amount due by the subscriber has not been established. Though there is an initial presumption under section 139 of N.I.Act, if the accused from the cross examination raise some reasonable doubt, the said presumption can be held to have been rebutted.