Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14. It is the specific defence of the Accused that, he has denied the claim made by the complainant and also issuance of the cheque towards discharge of the liability in question. It is also specific defence of the Accused that, the complainant is husband of one Mrs. Bharathi Devi who was one of the partners along with him in Bengaluru Agarwala Bhavan and was not taking part in day to day affairs of the said partnership business but the complainant used to take care of the affairs of the said firm and when ever there was requirements of funds the complainant used to take the cheques of the account of Bengaluru Agarwal Bhavan Firm and individual account of the partners of the firm, in good faith he had given his two signed blank cheques of his individual account and several signed blank papers to the complainant to raise loan for the purpose of the business of firm but the complainant has misused his signed blank cheques and signed blank papers and filed this false case. Hence on this back ground the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the complainant and Accused has to be examined by the court.

32. It is relevant here to mention that, the Accused in order to rebut the presumption available to the complainant U/s.118 and 139 of N.I.Act himself examined as DW.1, in his evidence has stated that, he know the complainant since 2004 and complainant has not paid any amount and has not issued the cheque in dispute to him towards his alleged liability of Rs.15 crores as claimed by him in the present case. The Accused /DW.1 further stated that, the complainant is the husband of Mrs. Bharathi Devi who was one of the partners along with him in Bengaluru Agarwal Bhavan and she was not taking part in the day to day affairs of the said business and the complainant used to take care of the affairs of the said firm and whenever there were requirements of funds for the business of the firm, the complainant used to take cheques of the firm Bengaluru Agarwal Bhavan and the individual accounts of the partners of the said firm and in good faith he had given his two signed cheques of individual account and several signed blank stamp papers to him so as to enable him to raise loan for the purpose of business of his firm but the complainant has misused his signed blank cheques and signed blank stamp papers and filed this false case against him.

33. The Accused in order to substantiate his oral evidence, has not produced single piece of documents and except his oral self serving statement nothing has been placed before the court. If really the Accused has given his signed blank cheques and signed blank stamp papers to the complainant to raise loan for the purpose of business of his firm and the complainant has raised the loan, definitely the Accused would have produced the documentary evidence but no such documents have been produced by the Accused. In addition to that, the Accused during the course of his cross-examination, categorically admitted that, at the time of his retirement from the partnership firm of Bengaluru Agarwal Bhavan, no loan was advanced on the basis of his signed blank cheques and documents and he has not called upon to the complainant to return of his signed blank cheques and documents at the time of his retirement and also admitted that, he is not in the habit of singing the blank documents, hence the said admissions itself falsify the defence of the Accused that, he has issued two signed blank cheques and several signed blank stamp papers and handed over the same to the complainant to raise the loan for the purpose of business of the said firm. Therefore when the Accused himself admitted that, he is not in the habit of signing the blank documents and no loan was advanced on the basis of signed blank cheques and documents, in such circumstances the defence of the Accused i.e., the complainant has misused his blank signed cheques and blank signed stamp papers has filed this case cannot be acceptable one. Hence, in the absence of documentary evidence the defence of the Accused appears to be mere denial in nature and Accused has miserably failed to rebut the presumptions available to the complainant U/s.118a and 139 of N.I. Act either by producing cogent and convincible evidence or from the materials placed by the complainant.

35. It is also relevant here to mention that, the Accused during the course of his cross-examination has categorically admitted that, he has given many blank cheques tot eh complainant and he do not remember how many blank signatures have been taken on blank sheets and he had given blank signed cheques and blank signed sheets infavour of the complainant when he was partner of Bengaluru Agrawal Bhavan and also admitted that, at the time of his retirement from the partnership firm no loan was advanced on the basis of his signed blank cheques and documents and he has not called upon the complainant to return of his blank signed cheques and documents at the time of his retirement and also admitted that, he did not have any hindrance to approach Central Bank of India, for stop payment of the cheques which have been signed by him and also admitted that, he came to know about misuse of his cheques when he received the notice from the complainant and he has not lodged any complaint before the Jurisdictional police or court in respect of misuse of his cheques by the complainant and he did not have any hindrance of lodge complaint either before the Jurisdictional police or in the court and in his reply notice has not stated with regard to issuance of blank signed cheques and documents in favour of the complainant. Hence, the above categorical admissions of the Accused makes it clear that, the Accused himself admitted that, the blank signed cheque and documents which are given by him were not used for obtaining loan and has not taken any action against the complainant for getting return of his alleged handing over of blank signed cheques and documents and alleged misuse of the said cheques and documents by the complainant. If really the complainant has collected his blank singed cheques and blank signed stamp papers for securing loan to the business of firm and even after retirement of the Accused from the said firm, the complainant did not return the alleged blank signed cheques and other documents collected by him, in such circumstances the Accused would have taken 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 blank signed cheque handed over to him or issuing stop payment instructions to his banker, but no such efforts have been made by the Accused even after receipt of the legal notice by him and after his appearance in this case, therefore except the bare 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 his blank signed cheques and blank signed stamp papers, an adverse inference can be drawn against him that, the Accused has not initiated any action against the complainant since the cheque in question has been issued by the Accused to the complainant towards discharge of the liability in question but not for any other purpose i.e. as alleged by the Accused in his defence. 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". It is true that, the above principles of law pertains to the case of different set of facts but the proposition of law held by the Hon'ble Apex Court is aptly applicable to the case on hand since in the present case also the accused has not made any efforts to get return of cheque alleged to have been given to the complainant for securing loan to the business of the firm, 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. In another decision reported in 2015 (4) KCCR 2881 (SC) in the case of T. Vasanthakumar Vs. Vijayakumari wherein the Hon'ble Apex court held that, "