Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

23. The learned counsel for the complainant has filed written argument. In his argument he has reiterated the brief facts of the case. Further submits that the accused defense is that security cheque misused by the complainant, but he admits the issuance of cheque and signature in the cheque. Further he paid the entire chit amount, hence question of payment does not arise, but he paid 16 installments only, it shows that he is under the wrong impression. Further submits that as per the registered chit C.C.NO.28404/2019 agreement he has to pay 50 installments but he paid only 14 installments, hence his defence is for away from the true fact. Further defence of the accused is that he was the member in another chit and he paid Rs.3 ½ lakhs in said chit and he did not continue in the said chit he demands to adjust the said amount to this chit. But this fact is created for the purpose of this case only, as per law there is no option to adjust the said amount to another chit, if this fact is true, he can claim the said amount before the proper court and under proper law. The accused created cock and bull story for escape from this case, if it is so, he needs to produce any documents to show that he paid Rs.3 ½ lakhs amount to the complainant. Further submits that the complainant company did not pay any dividends, but as per the registered chit agreement says "if the default is continued consecutively for a period of 3 months from the prized subscriber lose the future dividends and the benefits of paying the future subscriptions in installments". Here, he failed to pay the installments from 15th installments, further more up to 14 installments he made a delayed payment, hence the company collected an amount of Rs.9,000/- as penalty. Therefore, question of demand dividends does not arise. Further the complainant made payment after four months, this fact may true but as per the agreement condition, his duty to provide the proper surety then the complainant duty to pay the chit amount, in the above C.C.NO.28404/2019 case, the accused provide the surety after two months then immediately, the company paid the chit amount after standard deductions as per law (agreement conditions).

27. It is further argued that the evidence placed before this court clearly shows that the complainant in order to make illegal monetary gain has presented a blank cheque given as security, by filling up the cheque and for the purpose of this case he has created documents and no transaction has been carried out between the complainant and the accused as alleged in the complaint. Hence, the accused has proved that the cheque was issued as a security and not for discharge of any legally enforceable debt/liability. For an offence under section 138 of N.I.Act to attract, the accused must have issued the cheque to discharge any legally enforceable debt/liability. But in the present case, since there is no due from the accused thus there lies no legally enforceable debt. Also the accused has successfully managed to rebut the evidence of the complainant with detailed cross examination and thereby rebutting the presumption under section 139. On the date of presentation of the cheque, the accused was not in due of Rs.16,00,000/-. The complainant has C.C.NO.28404/2019 not produced any material documents to show that when the subscriber/accused defaulted monthly installment before presentation of the cheque. Thus the complainant failed to prove that the accused had issued the subject cheque for a sum of Rs.16,00,000/-. The complainant has misused the cheque obtained from the accused as security. Therefore, issuing the subject cheque for repayment of the due is far away from truth. The complainant unable to prove the case that the accused had issued the cheque to them in lieu of liability recoverable debt. Further the accused created doubt against the story putforth by the complainant in the complaint. The pharse "debt or other liability" means a legally enforceable debt or other liability. There was no convincing evidence from the complainant's side as to existence of any existing debt/liability to be discharged by the accused. The accused has discharged the onus that the subject cheque was not received by the complainant for any existing debt/liability. Hence, the accused is entitled to acquittal.

33. Since, the presumption under section 139 of C.C.NO.28404/2019 N.I.Act is a rebuttable presumption the accused is firstly required to produce some probable evidence to rebut the same. Though in the criminal cases, the standard of the proof required for the accused is not so strict as required for the complainant to prove the case. Further the accused has to produce some probable evidence, which creates doubt about the existence of legally enforceable debt/liability. In the present case, as per the defence taken by the accused is that the cheque was given for security. Further defence taken by the accused is that he has already paid entire chit installments to the complainant. Except, the said defence, he has not produced any materials to prove such defence. If he had paid entire amount to the complainant and further he had given the blank cheque to the complainant for the purpose of security, what prevented the accused to file the complaint immediately after the alleged illegal act made by the complainant. Further what prevented the accused to file the complaint against the complainant for misusing of the alleged cheque. On which date he came to knew about the alleged illegal act of the complainant, he did not whisper about on what date he came to know the alleged cheque illegally misused by the complainant. Admittedly the accused is having knowledge of the financial transaction, why he has given the blank cheque to the complainant without anticipating the consequence is not explained by him. So also, he has C.C.NO.28404/2019 not stated anything as to what steps he took to receive back the blank cheque. Moreover, immediately after the alleged blank cheque misused by the complainant he has not lodge complaint before concerned police station. No steps have been taken to receive back the blank cheque, after he came to know about the same. Further on perusal of Ex.P.3, 4 and 6 it reveals that the accused was a subscriber in chit group No.LT012D JN- 02 for a chit value of Rs.25,00,000/- and monthly subscription of Rs.50,000/- each for 50 months. But the accused has not denied the same. Further the accused in order to prove his defence he has not produce any documents before this court.

40. In the defence there is no ill-will between the complainant and the accused. Hence, misuse of the security cheque and filing a false case is not possible.

C.C.NO.28404/2019 The accused admittedly having knowledge of business. It is implies, he is conversant with financial transaction. If the complainant misused the said cheque and had not return the same, inspite of collecting cheque leaves from him, as a prudent man, the accused should have inquired with the complainant and demanded to return that cheque. No ordinary prudent man would keep quite in such circumstances, without taking any steps. The conduct of the accused is very unusual, because he did not take any legal action against the complainant, even after filing of the complaint based on Ex.P.11. Further he could have issued a notice to his banker to stop payment or legal notice to the complainant or he could have given complaint to the police station immediately. No such steps were taken by the accused. He simply makes a bald allegation of misuse of security cheque against the complainant.