Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The complainant has filed the complaint under Section 200 of Criminal Procedure Code against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 25 of The Payment and Settlement Systems Act 2007 r/w Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. The brief case of the complainant is as under:

That the complainant is involved in the business of wholesale trading of agricultural products and fresh produce supply and tied up with Non Banking Financial Institutions to enable the service of credit facility to borrowers as per the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India. The accused is engaged in the business of wholesale trade of agricultural products and commission agency. The accused approached the complainant for loan through M/s Trillion Loans Fin tech Private Limited in loan ID No.36850. After considering the same, the M/s Trillion Loans Fin-tech Private Limited sanctioned loan to the sum of Rs.21,15,601/- on 23-05-2023 and the accused has availed a sum of Rs.14,16,639/-. The accused has agreed to repay the loan as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement. The C.C.No.22876/2024 accused approached for loan on online platform, he has digitally signed the loan documents. The complainant is acting as an assignee of M/s Trillion Loans Fin-tech Private Limited. It is pleaded that during the process of loan transaction the accused has issued a signed NACH( National Automated Clearing House) mandate towards part payment bearing No. SBIN7022505230060821 drawn on State Bank of India registered on 25-05-2023, for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards due discharge of debt/liability. After availing loan, initially, the accused made regular payments and later the accused failed to make payment as per the agreement. The accused on repeated demands of the complainant, instructed to present the NACH mandate which is given for outstanding amount. As per the instructions of the accused, the complainant has processed E-NACH mandate through his banker HDFC Bank, 1st Stage, Koramangala for a outstanding sum of Rs.3,82,380/- and on processing said E NACH Mandate, it is returned dishonored with remarks "Balance Insufficient" in the account of the accused to honor the same on 21-02-2024 bearing sequence No.624638430. On receipt of said intimation, the complainant got issued legal notice on 22-02-2024 through registered post and demanded to pay the amount dishonoured under E-NACH Mandate. The notice is served on the accused on 01-03-2024. Inspite of issuance of notice, the accused failed to C.C.No.22876/2024 pay the claim amount to the complainant with in the statutory time. Therefore, the accused has committed the offence punishable Section 25 of the Payment and Settlement Systems Act 2007 r/w Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore the complainant has filed the complaint.

11. Therefore it is proper to consider whether the statutory requirements for constituting the offence under Section 25 of he Payment and Settlement Systems Act 2007 r/w Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is complied by the complainant. The PW 1 has deposed that the complainant is tied up with Trillion Loans Fine-tech Private Limited, a Non Banking Financial Institution and the complainant is assignee of Trillion Loans Fine-tech Private Limited. He has deposed that the accused approached the complainant for credit facility through online and the complainant has facilitated the credit facility to the accused through Trillion Loans fine-tech Pvt Ltd for a sum of Rs.21,15,601/- out of which the accused has availed a sum of C.C.No.22876/2024 Rs.14,16,639/- from Trillion Loans fine-tech Pvt Ltd through the complainant, which is to be repaid as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement. The PW 1 has deposed that towards repayment of liability, the accused issued E NACH Mandate for monthly installments bearing No. SBIN7022505230060821 drawn on State Bank of India registered on 25-05-2023, for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards due discharge of debt/liability. The PW 1 has produced the NACH mandate copy as Ex.P 6. He has deposed that the accused has defaulted to repay the loan availed regularly as agreed upon and he become defaulter in repayment. He has deposed that they have processed said NACH Mandate issued by the accused for realization of a sum of Rs.3,82,380/- through sequence no.624638430 through their banker ie HDFC Bank, Koramangala Branch, Bengaluru and said NACH Mandate returned dishonored on 21-02.2024 for the reason "Balance Insufficient" in the account of the accused to execute the mandate. As provided under Section 25(4) of The Payment and Settlement Systems Act and also under Section 146 of Negotiable Instruments Act law presumes that on production of banker slip or memo having thereon the official mark denoting that the cheque/ electronic fund transfer has been dishonored, presume the fact of dishonor of such said cheque, unless and until same is disproved. The accused has not disputed the C.C.No.22876/2024 dishonour of NACH mandate. The PW1 has deposed that they have got issued legal notice dated 22-02-2024 calling upon the accused to pay the due amount as per Ex.P8. The PW 1 has deposed that said notice issued through RPAD is duly served on the accused on 01-03-2024. The complainant has produced the postal receipt and postal track consignment as Ex.P 9 and Ex.P10. Therefore it is clear that the demand notice duly served on the accused. The PW 1 deposed that inspite of issuance of notice, the accused failed to pay the claim amount to the complainant with in the statutory time. The complaint is filed before this court on 28-03-2024. Thus the complainant has complied all the statutory requirements for constitution of offence under Section 25 of The Payment and Settlement Systems Act 2007 r/w Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, the complainant is entitled for presumption under Section 25 (2) of The Payment and Settlement Systems Act 2007. Under Section 139 of Negotiable Instrument Act also there is similar presumption. The provisions of Section 139 of Negotiable Instrument Act reads as under:-

14. The accused has brought on record some discrepancies in the averments in the complaint about the amount lent to the accused. In respect of same loan account, the complainant has processed NACH for twice and for the dishonour of NACH the C.C.No.22876/2024 complainant has filed this case and another case in CC NO. 6299/2024 before this court. In the cross examination of PW 1 it is elicited that the accused has availed loan in 5 credit transactions for Rs.11,26,200/-. It is also elicited that in the complaint in this case it is pleaded that a sum of Rs.14,16,639/- is availed by the accused and in CC No.6299/2024 it is pleaded that a sum of Rs.12,10,749/- is availed by the accused. But in the cross examination PW 1 has deposed that accused has availed only a sum of Rs.11,26,200/-. Therefore there is distinction in the availment of the loan by the accused under the credit facility. Therefore the accused has much contended that there is falsity in the case of the complainant and the complainant has not produced statement of accounts or debit note for av availment of the loan by the accused. The accused has suggested that the Trillion Loans Fine-tech Pvt Limited has credited only RS. 3,26,200/- to the bank account of the accused and he has produced the account statement of accused Anjaneya Traders as EX.D1. The complainant has also admitted that to the account of Anjaneya Treders the amount deposited is only Rs.3,26,200/- only. But the complainant has stated that they have credited a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- each to the personal account of proprietor of the accused firm Ashoka DR on 23-01-2024, 24-01-2024, 25-01- 2024 and 31-01-2024 totally Rs.8,00,000/-. To substantiate C.C.No.22876/2024 said aspect the complainant has got summoned the statement of accounts of the proprietor of the accused Ashoka D.R. from State Bank of India. The said statement of accounts is produced by the Bank manager and it is marked through PW 1 as Ex.P 11 and relevant entry for credit of amount on the above stated dates as Ex.P 11(a) to (d). The accused in the cross examination has not denied credit of said amount of Rs.8,00,000/- to the EX.P 11 account from the complainant/ Trillion Loans Fine-tech Pct Ltd. The accused has suggested that it is not related to loan application No. 36850, in respect of which now the complainant is making the claim. The accused except suggesting it, he has not disclosed for which transaction said amount is credited by the complainant/ Trillion Loans Fine-tech Pct Ltd. Mere denial of the accused is not sufficient to rebut the presumption and be should produce probable material. Thus the documents produced by the complainant proves that a sum of Rs.3,26,200/- is credited to the proprietor ship firms account and Rs.8,00,000/- is credited to the account of Ashok D.R. the proprietor of the firm. Therefore even though there is some discrepancy in the averments in the complaint in both cases about the amount availed by the accused from the complainant, by proceeding the statement of accounts the complainant has established the loan amount availed by the accused through the complainant. Therefore all these contentions of the accused is C.C.No.22876/2024 not helpful or sufficient to the accused to create doubt about availment of the credit facility by the accused and the existence of legally recoverable debt.

15. Further the accused has also taken contention that he has made repayment of Rs.1,90,000/- to the loan account. The PW1 has also admitted in his cross examination that in respect of both cases they have received a sum off Rs.1,90,000/- from the accused. Therefore repayment for a sum of Rs.1,90,000/- is not in dispute. This contention of the accused itself shows that he has not repaid the loan availed as per the terms and conditions of the loan as shown in Ex.P 3 to 5 loan documents and he has committed default. The accused by taking this contention has admitted that existence of legally recoverable debt. The accused has not brought on record as to when he has paid said amount of Rs.1,90,000/- either before presentation of NACH or after presentation of NACH. The accused has not denied the execution of loan documents in online platform. Therefore this defence of the accused also not tenable and sufficient to rebut the presumption of existence of legally recoverable debt.