Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.31 seconds)
Sri. Achappa P.B vs Smt. C. Savithri on 5 August, 2021 cites

Rangappa vs Sri Mohan on 7 May, 2010

25. So, considering entire materials on record the accused in order to rebut the presumption drawn in favour of the complainant has taken multiple defenses i.e., doubt of concrete relationship between complainant and accused, not producing any documents with respect to payment, financial capacity, nexus between complainant and one Kiran and Ex.D1 document, however, the accused has not brought out any material proof that the accused here in is unknown to her, so, that there were no concrete relationship between the parties, further, so far as, non securing document with respect to proof of advancement of loan is concern, as held supra the complainant has specifically stated he had obtained the receipts from the accused for proof of payment of money, but, same was returned to the accused while issuing the Ex.P1 cheque, admittedly, cheque is belongs to the accused, which is nothing, but, an acknowledgment of debt, therefore, the explanation of 25 C.C.No.51663/2014 the complainant about returning of receipts at the time of issuing Ex.P1 cheque cannot be ruled out, hence, non production of any receipts, non­execution of any documents, non­charging of interests would not be the valid grounds for displacement of presumption. Accordingly, the decisions relaid by the accused i.e., AIR 2008 SC 278, 2008 3KCR 1569, ILR 2008 KAR 4629, are not applicable to the case in hand, as these decisions were pronounced much prior to the decision of constitutional bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in Rangappa Vs. Mohan, wherein, as held supra once the complainant proved the signature and cheque related to the accused mandatory presumption shall be drawn then onus is on the accused to displace the presumption drawn in favour of the complainant by producing probable evidence, either from the materials produced by the complainant or he may be produced materials in contrary to the case of the complainant so as to prove the debt did not exist or non­existence of legally enforcible debt, further, mere explanation from the accused is not acceptable, but, the explanation given by the accused must be capable to believe or accept under law, at this stage the court relaying upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court 26 C.C.No.51663/2014 Sumethi Vij Vs. M/s. Paramount Tech. Fab. Industries, held that, " To disprove the presumption, the accused should bring on record such facts and circumstances, upon consideration of which, the court may either believe that the consideration and debt didn't exist or their non­existence was so probable that a prudent man would under the circumstances of the case, act upon the plea that they didn't exist".
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 9567 - K G Balakrishnan - Full Document
1