Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

22. Further argued that the accused No.2 has failed to prove the very fact that the cheques-Ex.P.1 to 3 were given to the complainant firm for the purpose of security. Moreover, section 118 of N.I.Act, there is a presumption that the Negotiable Instruments is drawn on the date, for the amount and in favour of the person as shown in it. It is for the accused to rebut the said presumption. But, in the case on hand no such evidence forthcoming. It was also argued by him that C.C.NO.27551/2023 as per the defence by the accused No.2 that she had given the blank cheques to the complainant firm for the purpose of security only. As such, the very defence of the accused is not believable. He further argued that the complainant had presented the said cheques for encashment as per the instructions of the accused No.2, but same were dishonor as "Funds Insufficient", thereafter the complainant got issued a legal notice to the accused. Inspite of issuance of the legal notice the accused neither reply to the notice nor paid the cheques amount, the complainant having no alternative have filed a complaint before this court. Further argued that the accused after obtaining bail from this court, she has given reply and also given complaint to the concerned police station. The defence of the accused No.2 is that she had issued the cheques to the complainant firm for the purpose of security and further taken up the defence that the complainant have misused the security cheques to harass the accused and to make a wrongful gain. Further she has taken defence that she has already paid entire amount to the complainant firm and there is no due to the complainant. But the accused in order to prove her defence she has not produced any piece of evidence except Ex.D.1 to 19 to rebut the said presumption under section 138 of N.I.Act. Therefore, the accused have committed an offence. Further argued that the C.C.NO.27551/2023 accused have taken another defence that the cheques in question had been issued for the purpose security at the time of business transaction with the complainant firm. Even though the issuance of cheques for security, the offence under section 138 of N.I.Act is attracted. Further argued that the amount mentioned in the cheques is the amount payable by the accused in respect of the invoices. Hence, he prays to convict the accused.

23. The learned counsel for the accused has argued that there was no legally enforceable debt/liability to the complainant firm from the accused for which the cheques-Ex.P.1 to 3 were issued. Further argued that the accused No.2 had issued the blank cheques to the complainant firm for the purpose of security at the time of business transaction with the complainant. Further argued that the accused not issued the cheques to the complainant firm for payment purpose, the complainant misused the security cheques issued by the accused. Further argued that till date there is no any due amount from the accused side to the complainant. Further argued that the complainant just to harass the accused and earn more money from the accused filled up the security cheques and presented the same to the bank for illegal gain. Further argued that on 08.09.2023 the accused paid due amount to the complainant through cash, till today there C.C.NO.27551/2023 is no any due amount. Further argued that the accused requested the complainant to return back her blank security cheques, but the complainant instead of returning the same misused the cheques and filed this false case. Further argued that after received this legal notice the accused called the complainant for collecting the security cheques, but the complainant instead of returning the cheques threaten from rowdies to the accused. Further argued that at the time of receiving the cheques from the accused, the complainant made a promise that he would not misused the said security cheques and further he undertaken that said cheques will be returned to the accused when stop the business between the complainant and the accused. It is further argued that the complainant had broken the promise that made with the accused, which was given for security purpose cheques by filing date and amount their whims and fancies.

29. Since, the presumption under section 139 of 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 proof required for the accused is not so strict as required for the complainant to prove the case, further the accused have 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 No.2 that she had given blank cheques to the complainant for the purpose of security and she has paid entire amount to the complainant firm and there is no due to the complainant. Except, the said defence, she has not produced any materials to prove such defence. If she had given blank cheques to the complainant firm for the purpose of security only, 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 cheques. On which date she came to knew about the alleged illegal act of the complainant, she did not whisper about on C.C.NO.27551/2023 what date she came to know the alleged cheques illegally misused by the complainant. Admittedly the accused is a businesswoman and having knowledge of the financial transaction, why she has given the blank cheques to the complainant firm without anticipating the consequence is not explained by her. So also, she has not stated anything as to what steps the accused took to receive back the security cheques. Moreover, immediately after the alleged cheques misused by the complainant she has not lodge any complaint before concerned police station. No steps have been taken to receive back the cheques, after she came to know about the same. Further on perusal of the documents, its reveals that the accused after obtaining the bail from this court on 08.01.2024 given reply through her counsel as per Ex.D.16. Further on 01.02.2024 the accused given the complaint to the Commissioner of Police, Infantry Road, Bangalore as per Ex.D.18. But after service of the notice the accused not given any reply to the notice. It shows that the accused escape from her legal liability to lodge complaint before the Commissioner of Police.

31. Further the accused No.2 has taken defence that the cheques were given to the complainant firm for the purpose of security only. Further she has paid entire amount to the complainant firm and there is no due to the complainant. The complainant have misused the security cheques issued by her. Hence, an offence under section 138 of N.I.Act is not attracted. In this regard once issuance of cheques and signatures are admitted, the statutory presumptions would arise under sections 138 of N.I.Act that the cheque was issued by C.C.NO.27551/2023 the drawer for legally payable debt/liability and for valid consideration. In the case of Sripati Singh (Since deceased) through his son Gaurav Singh V/s State of Jarkhand and another, reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 1002, the Hon'ble Supreme court held that; once the cheque is issued as security for the loan and if the loan is not paid back then if the cheque is dishonored which attract 138 of N.I.Act. The principle of law laid- down in the above decision is applicable to the facts of this case. Therefore, the contention of the accused No.1 cannot be acceptable that the cheques were given only for security purpose, but without producing any documents, then the accused has to pay the cheques amount when it is presented for encashment which is legally recoverable debt.