Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: mandeep singh in Jagdeep Singh vs . Mandeep Singh on 29 November, 2022Matching Fragments
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Jagdeep Singh Vs. Mandeep Singh PS Khyala Brief reasons for decision:
1) The necessary facts for disposal of present case as reflected in the complaint are that the accused took a friendly loan for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the complainant to overcome short-term financial crisis. That the accused has issued a cheque bearing number 081750 dated 18.10.2014 drawn on Axis Bank of India, Tilak Nagar Branch, New Delhi. The complainant accordingly, presented the aforesaid cheque which is Ex. CW1/1 and the same was returned unpaid by the banker for the reasons "Funds insufficient" vide return memo dated 21.10.2014 which is Ex. CW1/2 and Legal demand notice was sent by speed post on 05.11.2014 which is Ex.CW1/3. The original postal receipt is Ex. CW1/4. It is submitted by the complainant that the accused has failed to pay the amount of cheque in question within the stipulated period of 15 days. Thereafter, complainant has filed the present written complaint case u/s 138 r/w 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Jagdeep Singh Vs. Mandeep Singh PS Khyala towards expenses and other charges. He further stated that the complainant took the cheque in question from him and cheque bearing number 003199 drawn on Union Bank of India, Tilak Nagar from his brother as security. He further stated that his brother repaid the entire loan amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to the complainant i.e. Rs.2,00,000/- by way of cheque bearing number 021822 dated 21.07.2014 drawn on Axis Bank Tilak Nagar and Rs.1,00,000/- in cash. He further stated that complainant has misused the cheque in question and also misused the cheque belonging to his brother. He further stated that he do not owe any liability to the complainant qua the cheque in question. He further stated that he had received the legal demand notice issued by the complainant.
5) In his defence, no evidence has been led by the accused despite opportunity being given.
6) Thereafter, Learned Counsels for both the parties made detailed final oral submissions on behalf of respective parties.
7) Ld. Counsel for the complainant contended that the accused has admitted that his dishonored cheque in question bears his signature and legal presumption of consideration u/s 139 of NI Act would act against the accused. It is further stated by Ld. Counsel for the complainant that the testimony of complainant during cross-examination by Ld counsel for the accused is very consistent and the accused failed to shake his credibility and veracity. It is further stated by Ld. Counsel for complainant that the accused has duly admitted the receiving of legal demand notice but not replied the same. It is further stated by Ld. Counsel for complainant that accused admitted the taking of loan from the complainant at every stage of trial but alleged that he and his brother took a loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- in total i.e. Rs. 1,40,000/- in the account of accused ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Jagdeep Singh Vs. Mandeep Singh PS Khyala Mandeep Singh and Rs. 1,50,000/- in the account of accused Jagdeep Singh after deducting of Rs. 10,000/- towards expenses and other charges by the complainant. It is further stated by Ld. Counsel for complainant that no complaint has been filed by the accused persons against the complainant. It is further stated by Ld. Counsel for complainant that the accused person did not even stop the payment of cheques in question. It is further stated by Ld. Counsel for complainant that accused has not lead any defence evidence with the fear that if he lead the defence evidence, the truth would come out. It is further stated by Ld. Counsel for complainant that accused failed to prove his defence. It is further stated by Ld. Counsel for complainant that accused failed to rebut the presumption raised against him under section 139 NI Act and therefore the accused may kindly be convicted in the present case. Ld. Counsel for complainant relied upon certain judgments which are as follows:
16) In present case, accused has admitted his signature and account number with respect to cheque in question. It is the case of the complainant that he had advanced the loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- each to the accused and his brother, who is accused in other connected matter. It is the defence of the accused that he and his brother had not taken a loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- each from the complainant rather they had taken jointly a loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- from the complainant and had received Rs. 1,40,000/- in one account and Rs. 1,50,000/- in other's account after deduction of Rs. 10,000/- by the complainant towards expenses and other charges. The accused persons had also taken plea that they had return the loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- by way of bank transfer of Rs. 2,00,000/- and by ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Jagdeep Singh Vs. Mandeep Singh PS Khyala giving Rs. 1,00,000/- in cash. However, the accused persons have proved that they had given Rs. 2,00,000/- by way of bank transfer as the same is admitted by the complainant. But the complainant refuted the receiving of Rs.2,00,000/- for the alleged loan transaction and stated that the said amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was given by the accused persons for some previous loan of Rs.2,40,000/-. The complainant also produced the statement of his bank account showing the transfer of Rs. 2,40,000/- in the account of accused persons i.e. Rs. 1,30,000/- in the account of accused Jitender Singh and Rs. 1,10,000/- in the account of accused Mandeep Singh. The accused persons failed to prove that they had given Rs. 1,00,000/- in cash to the complainant and consequently, failed to prove their defence.