Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

19. The complainant has also examined his son­in­law by name Sri. V. Srinivas as PW2. The PW2 in his evidence stated that, the complainant is his father­in­law and worked as Attender in Central Government and retired from the services during the year 2014 and his house and house of the accused are adjacent to each other and his house No.17 and house number of the accused is 71 and also stated that, there was no monitory transaction between him and the accused, but the elder sister of the accused namely Smt. Manjula borrowed an amount of Rs.2 lakhs from him for her medical treatment, at that time none of the family members of the said Smt. Manjula were present and more particularly the accused and the said Manjula has not given any cheque or on demand pro­note towards security of the said loan and thereafter on 25.02.2017 she had C.C.No. 27371/2017 J repaid the said loan amount of Rs.2 lakhs by transferring to his account and she has no due to him. The PW2 further stated that, the loan amount of Rs.2 lakhs advanced by him to the sister of the accused i.e., Smt. Manjula and the transaction in question and cheque in question are not related to each other and either the complainant or the accused or the sister of the accused informed him about the loan transaction in question and either the accused or his sister Manjula have issued any letter or notice or orally requested for return of cheque in question, hence there is no relation in respect of the cheque in question and financial transaction between him and the sister of the accused and accused has falsely deposed before the court stating that, the cheque in question was given to him in respect of the loan amount advanced by him to his sister Smt. Manjula towards security of the loan amount, but he has not received cheque in question towards security of the loan amount advanced to the sister of the accused. The learned counsel for the accused has cross­examined the PW2 in length, but nothing has been eliciated to believe that, the cheque in question was given by the accused towards the security of the loan amount of Rs.2 lakhs advanced C.C.No. 27371/2017 J by the PW2 to the sister of the accused i.e., Smt. Manjula. The PW2 has denied that, he has misused the cheque in question which was given towards security of the loan advanced by him to the sister of the accused through the complainant by filing this complaint and he is aware of the entire facts of this case, since the date of filing of this complaint despite of it he is deposing falsely before the court. Hence nothing has been eliciated from the PW2 to believe the defence of the accused, that the cheque in question was given by him to the son­in­law of the complainant towards security of the loan amount of Rs.2 lakhs advanced by him to the sister of the accused by name Smt. Manjula and the said cheque was misused by the son­in­law of the complainant through the complainant by filing this complaint.

Hence, the above said admissions of the DW2 makes it clear that, the DW2 has clearly admitted that, she does not know the loan amount borrowed by the accused from the complainant and though they are residing in the same house, but they separately looking after their respective affairs, hence it goes to show that, if really the accused has not borrowed loan amount from the complainant, definitely the DW2 would have denied the suggestion made to her, but instead of that, she admitted that, she does not know as to whether the loan amount borrowed by the accused from the complainant and they are separately looking after their personal transactions, if such being the fact then the question of issuing the cheque in question by the accused on behalf of DW2 in respect of the loan amount borrowed by her from the son­in­law of the complainant does not arise at all. It is also relevant here to mention that, the DW2 has not produced any documents to show C.C.No. 27371/2017 J that, she had paid interest at the rate of 4% to the son­in­law of the complainant, if really there were differences arose between her and the son­in­law of the complainant and the accused in respect of the receiving of the interest amount and due to that, the son­in­law of the complainant misused the cheque in question by filing this complaint through the complainant, definitely the DW2 would have produced the documents to show that, she had paid interest amount to the son­in­law of the complainant, therefore in the absence of material documents the defence taken by the accused and evidence of the DW2 with regard to alleged misuse of cheque in question by the complainant cannot be acceptable one

26. It is also relevant here to mention that, the accused / DW1 in his cross examination has admitted that, the cheque in question i.e., Ex.C.1 belongs to him and signature found on Ex.C.1(a) is that of his signature and he had signed to the cheque on 05.10.2016 and the cheque in question has presented by the complainant through his banker and same has been dishonoured for want of Sufficient Funds as per Ex.C.3 and immediate after C.C.No. 27371/2017 J dishonour of the cheque he got received the message about the bouncing of Ex.C.1 cheque. Hence the said admissions of the accused makes it clear that, the accused came to know about the dishonour of the cheque in question immediate after dishonour, if that being the fact and even after coming to know about the presentation of the cheque in question and its dishonour inspite of that, the accused has not made any efforts to take steps against the complainant for alleged misuse of cheque in question. If really the cheque in question was given as blank signed cheque to the complainant and immediate after its dishonour the accused could have taken steps against the complainant for alleged misuse of the cheque, but no such efforts have been made, in such circumstance the conduct of the accused may leads to draw an adverse inference against him that, in order to avoid liability in question the accused has taken such defence and same cannot be acceptable one. The accused / DW1 has categorically admitted in his evidence that, he has not produced any documents to show that, the disputed cheque has been given as security towards the loan amount borrowed by his sister from the son­in­law of the complainant, hence the admission C.C.No. 27371/2017 J of the accused itself sufficient to hold that, the accused in order to avoid liability to pay the cheque amount as set up the defence which cannot be acceptable one. Therefore for the above said reasons the accused has miserably failed to prove that, the cheque in question was given by the accused on behalf of her sister towards the security of the loan amount of Rs.2 lakhs borrowed by his sister from the son­in­law of the complainant.

30. It is also the defence of the accused that, the son­in­law of the complainant had collected his blank signed cheque towards security of the loan amount borrowed by his sister from him and thereafter the said blank signed cheque is misused by the son­in­law of the complainant by filing this false complaint through his father­in­law. But the Accused himself has admitted that, the cheque in question belongs to his account and signature found at Ex.P.1 (a) is that of his signature. Once signature on the negotiable instrument act is admitted, in that circumstances sec. 20 of N.I. Act comes into play i.e. as per Sec. 20 of N.I.Act if the blank or incomplete Negotiable Instrument is given to the holder in due course, it is to be presumed that, he had given authority to the holder in due course to fill up the remaining portion. In this regard, it is relevant here C.C.No. 27371/2017 J to refer the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in ILR 2006 KAR 2054 in the case of H.S.Srinivasa Vs. Girijamma and another wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that "