Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (1.49 seconds)The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Section 139 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Rangappa vs Sri Mohan on 7 May, 2010
23. It is true that, the complainant has proved
that, the cheque in question I.e. Ex.P.1 belongs to the
account of the accused and the signature found at
Ex.P.1(a) is that of the accused. The complainant has
also proved that the cheque in dispute was presented
within its validity period and the said cheque
returned dishonored for the reasons of Dormant
account as per Ex.P.2 and it is also proved by the
complainant that, within 30 days from the date of
receipt of bank memo has issued legal notice to the
accused and the said notice was also served on the
accused. Hence, the complainant has complied the
35 C.C.No. 8176/18 J
mandatory requirements as required U/s.138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act and initial presumption
can be drawn U/s.139 of N.I. Act in favour of the
complainant, but as it is already held in the above
that, in view of principles of law laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court of India in Rangappa
Vs.Mohan case reported in 2010(11) SCC 441, the
Hon'ble Apex court held that the said presumption is
rebuttable and the said presumptions can be
rebutted by the accused either on the basis of
materials produced by the complainant himself or by
adducing his separate oral and documentary
evidence. As it is already held in the above that, the
complainant has miserably failed to prove that, he
has advanced loan of Rs.2 Lakhs to the accused and
in turn the accused has issued the cheque in
question in his favour as contended by him in his
complaint and evidence. Now it is to be seen that,
the accused has rebutted the presumptions available
in favour of the complainant or not.
K Subramani vs K Damodara Naidu on 13 November, 2014
Appealed against -Absence of statement in the
complaint as to when the amount was actually
given to the accused Absence of material
particulars of the transaction in the complaint
except signature all other entries are in different
handwriting different ink and undoubtedly made
at different time Mentioning of merely the date
of issue of cheque without any material
particulars -HELD, Judgment of acquittal is
justified As seen from the complaint there is no
statement as to when the amount was actually
29 C.C.No. 8176/18 J
given to the Accused. The complainant has
merely mentioned the date of issuance of cheque
without any material particulars of the
transaction. The cheque in question undoubtedly
is signed by the accused. The dispute raised is
entries made in the cheque are not in his
handwriting. - It is not the case of the
complainant that cheque was issued in blank
and filled up later with consent of the accused
FURTHER HELD, perusal of cheque at Ex.P.1
makes it manifest that except signature all
other entries are in different hand writing,
different ink and undoubtedly made at different
time. In this view it is difficult to accept the
version of the complainant. CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 - SECTION 378(4) -
APPEAL AGAINST ACQUITTAL - DISCUSSED. It is
a relevant here to the decision of Hon'ble Apex
Court of India reported in (2015) 1 SCC 99 in the
case of K.Subramani Vs. K. Damodar Naidu.,
wherein the Hon'ble Apex court held that " Debt,
Financial and Monetary Laws Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 Ss, 138, 118 and 139 -
John K Abraham vs Simon C Abraham & Anr on 5 December, 2013
In another decision
reported in (2014) 2 SCC 236 in the case of John
K. Abhraham Vs. Simon C.Abraham and
another., wherein the Hon'ble Apex court held that
" In the present case the complainant not aware
of the date when substantiate amount of
Rs.1,50,000/= was advanced by him to the
appellant/accused - respondent/ complainant
failed to produce relevant documents in support
of alleged source for advancing money to the
Accused - complainant also not aware as to
when and where the transaction took place for
which the cheque in question was issued to him
by Accused - complainant also not sure as to
who wrote the cheque and making contradictory
statements in this regard in view of said
serious defects/ lacuna in evidence of
complainant, judgment of High Court reversing
31 C.C.No. 8176/18 J
acquittal of Accused by trial court, held was
perverse and could not be sustained - acquittal
restored". Hence above the said principles of law
laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court to the present facts
of the case are aptly applicable to this case as in the
present case also the complainant has not stated the
date on which the Accused was approached him
seeking loan of Rs.2 Lakhs and has not stated the
place of issuance of cheque in question to him and
has also not produced the document to show that, he
has got sufficient source of funds to lend the loan
amount to the Accused and the complainant has
failed to prove that, he has lent loan of Rs.2 Lakhs to
the accused as stated by him in his complaint and
evidence, in such circumstances the claim set up by
the complainant in the present complaint appears to
be doubtful with regard to lending of loan amount in
question, in such circumstances in view of the above
principles of law laid down by Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka and Apex Court the complainant has
miserably failed to prove that he has lent loan
amount of Rs.2 Lakhs to the Accused and in turn the
Accused has issued the cheque in question towards
the discharge of the said loan amount and the
Accused has rebutted the presumption available
32 C.C.No. 8176/18 J
infavour of the complainant.
Indian Bank Association & Ors vs Union Of India & Anr on 21 January, 2014
5 In view of the principles of law laid down and
as per the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the decision of the Indian Bank Association Vs.,
Union of India, reported in 2014 (5) SCC 590,
after recording the plea of the accused, as he
intended to set out his defence, and the case was
posted for cross examination of complainant and
after his crossexamination, the complainant has
closed his side.