Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

17. The Accused in his defence has disputed the fact that, he entered into a sale agreement with the complainant and he has received Rs.6,00,000/- from the complainant as advance amount and the issuance of cheques in question to the complainant towards repayment of the advance amount as claimed by the complainant. It is further defence of the Accused that, he took some of Rs.50,000/- from the complainant some time back and the complainant took his blank cheques, blank signed e- stamp papers and some blank signed plain papers from him as security and has executed a bond stating that, he had received three cheques and other documents as security for the transaction and now the complainant has misused the cheques in question and created an agreement on blank signed stamp papers and has produced before the court.

21. However, the above suggestions made by the Accused makes it clear that, the Accused has admitted his signatures on the Ex.P.8, i.e. agreement of sale and also admitted that, the said agreement is got typed and also admitted that, he has put his signatures on one side of two stamp papers, but his defence is that, he had signed the said stamp papers at that time they were blank sheets and later the complainant has got created it as agreement of sale. Hence, when the Accused has admitted his signatures on the documents i.e. stamp papers and also admitted that, the stamp papers have been given to the complainant in respect of alleged loan transaction of Rs.50,000/- borrowed from complainant, the burden of proving the said fact shifted to the Accused and if the Accused is able and proved the said fact, certainly it can be held that, Ex.P.8 is created by the complainant, but except oral denial no documentary proof has been produced by the Accused, moreover the Accused himself denied that, he is not owned any property and has not executed any agreement of sale, if such being the fact, then the doubt arises as to how the complainant has came to know about the site property and property description and other particulars of the property owned by the Accused and if really the Accused has handed over the blank signed stamp papers in respect of alleged loan transaction of Rs.50,000/- and the complainant is intending to create the blank signed stamp papers of the Accused, he would have created the said document as loan document instead of agreement to sale and there was no necessity for the complainant to create at as agreement of sale, in such circumstances, the defence of the Accused appears that, only in order to deny Ex.P.8, has taken the defence that, at the time of signing the stamp papers they were blank sheets and latter complainant got created as sale agreement. It is also important to note that, except the suggestions made to the complainant i.e., complainant has got typed the document at Ex.P.8, on his blank signed stamp paper, nothing has been produced before the court to show that, how and when and for what purpose the complainant has got created Ex.P.8, therefore only on the basis of suggestions that, too suggestions were denied by the complainant, the heavy burden is on the Accused to bring on record such material which could tilt the preponderance of probabilities on his favour. It is also important to note that, the fact of the matter remains that, the Accused could not deny his signatures were available on the blank stamp paper with the complainant, the said suggestions is too remote and uncertain to be accepted, as there are no proof or documentary evidence or reasons available for the Accused singing on blank stamp paper, therefore the defence set-up by the Accused in alleged creation of agreement to sell i.e. Ex.P.8 by complainant cannot be acceptable.

22. It is also important here to refer the one of the document which was produced by the Accused himself during the course of cross-examination of the complainant i.e. marked as Ex.N.1, according to the Accused there was an agreement between him and the complainant in respect of alleged loan of Rs.50,000/- borrowed by him from the complainant and at that time the complainant has collected his four signed blank cheques and out of the said cheques two cheques are the subject matter cheques in this complaint. but on careful perusal of the recitals of Ex.N.1 wherein it is nowhere mentioned about the alleged fact that, at the time of borrowing of alleged loan of Rs.50,000/- by the Accused , the complainant had collected his blank signed stamp papers along with the blank signed cheques as alleged by him in his defence, if really the Accused has given his blank signed stamp papers along with blank signed papers, definitely the said fact would have been reflected in the Ex.N.1 but no such recitals are forthcoming in the Ex.N.1, in such circumstances, it can be held that, only for the sake of defence and to deny the existence of Ex.P.8 the Accused had taken the defence that, complainant had collected his blank signed stamp papers and later got typed it and created as agreement of sale, such defence cannot be acceptable one in view of the document produced by the Accused himself i.e Ex.N.1. Hence there appears absolutely no reason to discard the contents of the Ex.P.8 from consideration as Accused himself admitted that, signatures found at Ex.p.8 are those of his signatures, in such circumstances, the document i.e Ex.P.8 cannot be ruled out for ruled out of consideration and the existence of contents in Ex.P.8, therefore the preponderance of probabilities lies heavily against the Accused. therefore in view of the said reasons the complainant has proved that, the Accused has agreed and sell the property to him for sum of Rs.16 Lakhs out of the said sale consideration amount, Accused has received sum of Rs.1,50,000/- on the date of execution of the sale agreement as per Ex.P.8 and has executed the sale agreement in favour of the complainant.

37. It is also important to note here that, the Accused in his defence has taken specific contention that, he had given signed blank cheques and blank signed stamp papers to the complainant at the time of borrowing loan amount of Rs.50,000/- and misused the said cheques and stamp papers by the complainant by filing this complaint. But the Accused in his cross-examination has admitted that, he used to receive the SMS in respect of his cheques having been presented are with regard to the debt and credit of the amounts in his account and he do not remember that, the date of dishonour of cheque in dispute. It is also seen from the records that, the legal notice caused by the complainant was received by the Accused, hence it goes to show that Accused is having knowledge of the dishonour of the cheques when the same were presented to the bank. Hence, even after coming to know about the dishonour of the cheques in question, the Accused has not made any efforts to initiate legal action against the complainant about alleged misuse of cheques in question and stamp papers, in such circumstances it can be held that, if really the Accused has given his blank signed cheques and blank signed stamp papers as a security at the time of borrowing the alleged loan amount from the complainant and thereafter the complainant has misused the same by filing this complaint against him, in such circumstances the Accused definitely he would have taken or initiate action against the complainant either by lodging the complaint before the police or court or atleast by issuing notice to the complainant for return of his alleged signed cheques and blank signed stamp papers handed over to him as a security or by issuing stop payment instructions to his banker, but no such efforts have been made by the Accused even after notice of the dishonour of his cheque and receipt of legal notice issued by complainant and even after his appearance in this case also, therefore mere denial of the Accused is not sufficient to hold that, he has rebutted the presumptions available to the complainant U/s.118 and 139 of the N.I. Act. It is also relevant here to mention that, the conduct of the Accused in not taking the action against the complainant for alleged misuse of cheques in question by the complainant may leads to draw an adverse inference against him that, the Accused has not initiated any action against the complainant since the cheques in question have been issued by the Accused to the complainant towards discharge of the liability in question but not for any other purpose. In this regard it is relevant here to refer the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court of India reported in AIR 2018 SC 3601 in a case of T.P.Murugan(dead) Thr. Lrs.V. Bhojan Vs. Posa Nandi, rep. Thr. Lrs. PA holder, T.P. Murugan V. Bhojan, wherein the Hon'ble apex Court held that "Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881) Ss.118, 138, 139 - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption as to enforceable debt- cheques allegedly issued by accused towards repayment of debt- Defence of accused that 10 cheques issued towards repayment of loan back in 1995 - behavior of accused in allegedly issuing 10 blank cheques back in 1995 and never asking their return for 7 years, unnatural - Accused admitting his signature on cheques and pronote, presumption under S.139 would operate against him - Complainant proving existence of legally enforceable debt and issuance of cheques towards discharge of such debt - Conviction, Proper". Hence in view of the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court are aptly applicable to the case on hand since in the present case also the accused has not made any efforts to get return of cheques alleged to be given to the complainant at the time of borrowing of alleged loan of Rs.50,000/- from him, under such circumstances, the said unnatural conduct of the accused in non taking of action, an adverse inference can be drawn against the accused that, the cheque in question issued by the accused towards discharge of the liability and presumption U/s.139 of N.I.Act would operate against him, as he has admitted the signature and cheque in question is belongs to him.