Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.21 seconds)Sadanandan Bhadran vs Madhavan Sunil Kumar on 28 August, 1998
Here is a case, Ex.P.5 cheque is dated
30.5.2015, validity of Ex.P.5 cheque was 3 months
and second time presentation of the cheque on
11 C.C.No.1102/2017
11.8.2016 comes within validity period. After second
time return of the cheque on 12.8.2016 the
complainant has issued notice to the accused on
2.9.2016 within 30 days. Therefore, the arguments
of the accused that the complainant not issued
notice to the accused within 30 days from the date of
Ex.P.6 bank endorsement cannot be accepted. The
facts and circumstances of the decision relied upon
by the accused cited above, in the case of
Sadanandan Bhadran Vs. Mahadevan Sunil Kumar
are different to the present case. Because, in the
cited case, after dishonour of the cheque notice was
issued to the accused demanding to pay the
dishonoured cheque amount and after issuance of
notice once again the cheque was presented to the
bank for encashment. But here is case, no such
circumstances arisen.
Tomaso Bruno & Anr vs State Of U.P on 20 January, 2015
The arguments of the accused is that, loan account
number of DW2 is LFS-ND 95. In the Annexure of
Ex.P.16 Income Tax Returns, the complainant
intentionally left out and not produced the
documents relates to LSF.No.95 to conceal the fact
that DW2 has availed loan. And therefore, adverse
inference has to be drawn for non production of
documents relates to LSF.No.95. and in support of
the said arguments relied upon the decision reported
in (2015) 7 SCC 178 (Tomaso Bruno & anr Vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh). The learned counsel for
the complainant has argued that, the list annexed to
Ex.P.16 is relates to the Defaulters of the loan and as
loan availed under LSF No.95 is not a defaulter the
said Number is not mentioned in Ex.P.16. There is
17 C.C.No.1102/2017
some force in the arguments of the learned counsel
for the complainant because in the annexure of
Ex.P.16 not only missed LSF No.95 and there are
other LSF Nos. are missed. Moreover, normally in the
income tax returns shown the debtors list.
M/S Kumar Exports vs M/S Sharma Carpets on 16 December, 2008
9. The defence of the accused is that, he has not
availed loan from the complainant. He stood as
surety to the loan obtained by Sri.Suresh Kumar.J
and at that time, he gave blank cheque to the
complainant as security to the said loan. At the time
of granting loan to the said Suresh Kumar.J, the
complainant obtained signatures on some blank
applications and by filing the blank applications and
cheque filed false complaint against the accused.
There is no legal liability on the part of the accused.
The learned counsel for the accused has cited the
decision reported in (2009) 2 SCC 513 (Kumar
Exports Vs. Sharma Carpets) Wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India held that, rebuttal of
presumption U/s.139 of N.I Act by the accused does
7 C.C.No.1102/2017
not require proof beyond reasonable doubt. Something
probable has to be brought on record.
Section 146 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
M/S. Rahul Builders vs M/S. Arihant Fertilizers & Chemical & ... on 2 November, 2007
20. Point No.2:- It is the case of the
complainant that, after dishonour of the cheque,
issued notice on 2.9.2016 through RPAD calling
upon the accused to pay the cheque amount within
15 days and the said notice returned on 16.9.2016
as not claimed. The learned counsel for the accused
has relied upon the decision reported in (2008) 2
SCC 321 (Rahul Builders Vs. Arihant Fertilizers
& Chemicals and Anr) to contend that an Omnibus
notice without specifying as to what was the amount
due under the dishonoured cheque could not
subserve the requirement of law. Here itself
23 C.C.No.1102/2017
mentioned that in the cited case, the cheque amount
was Rs.1,00,000/- and notice issued to pay an
amount of Rs.8,72,409/-. But here is a case, no
such circumstances arisen. The complainant
produced Ex.P.8 copy of the notice dated 2.9.2016,
Ex.P.9 and 10 postal receipts and Ex.P.11 & P.12
unclaimed RPAD covers. As per Ex.P.11 & 12 postal
covers the complainant sent notice to the accused to
his residential address and working place address.
Both the notices returned as not claimed. In the
cross-examination of PW1 and defence evidence the
accused has not disputes the address to which
notices were sent to the accused. The accused in the
course of cross-examination admits that, the address
mentioned on Ex.P.11 & P.19 and in his chief
examination affidavit are one and the same. Ex.P.11
postal cover sent to the residential address of the
accused. It has come in the cross-examination of the
accused that, he is a professor in veterinary college,
Hebbal, Bangalore. As per Ex.P.12, notice sent to the
24 C.C.No.1102/2017
working place address of the accused. So there is no
dispute about the address of the accused to which
notices were sent by the complainant after dishonour
of the cheque in question. It is well established
principle of law that the notice sent through
registered post to the correct address of the sendee
returned as not claimed, such notice deemed to have
been served to the sendee. Here is a case, there is no
dispute about the address of the accused to which
notices were sent. Therefore, the notices sent to the
accused deemed to have been served on the accused.
Moreover, there is no cross-examination of PW1 and
defence evidence is silent regarding service of notice
to the accused. The materials placed by the
complainant clearly establishes after dishonour of
the cheque the complainant sent notice to the
accused in compliance of Sec.138(b) of N.I Act.
Hence, I answer Point No2. in the Affirmative.
The Pirna Urban Co-Operative Credit ... vs Kamlavati Gurudas Goltekar on 6 April, 2017
In support of the arguments,
relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of
Bombay reported in LAWS (BOM) 2010 35 (Vividha
Urban Co-operative Credit Society Limited Vs.
State Gurudas Krishna Patrekar) and decision of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, reported in
(1998) 6 SCC 514 (Sadanandan Bhadran Vs.
Mahadavan Sunil Kumar).
M.K. Divakaran Thampi vs State Of Kerala on 26 November, 2015
18. As observed above, the accused is not a prudent
man and he is a Ph.d holder and professor in
Veterinary College, Hebbal, Bangalore and he knows
the consequences of suretyship and issuance of
cheque. If the accused issued cheque in question to
the complainant as a surety to Suresh Kumar.J, he
20 C.C.No.1102/2017
would have taken steps to get back the cheque. After
discharge of the loan by the DW2 Suresh kumar.J,
the accused could have got returned the cheque from
the complainant. The accused could have issued
notice to the complainant to return the cheque
issued as security to the loan availed by Suresh
kumar.J and in case the complainant fail to return
the cheque, the accused could have issued stop
payment instructions to the bank. In the cross-
examination of PW1 and in the defence evidence of
the accused no defence is put forth by the accused
having taken steps against the complainant for
return of the cheque. If really, the accused issued the
cheque in question as security to the loan availed by
Suresh Kumar.J he would not have kept quite
without taking any steps to get back the cheque. In
action on the part of the accused leads to draw
adverse inference against him. The accused has
relied upon the decision reported in LAWS (Ker)2016
910 (K.K.Divakaran Vs. State of Kerala) I have
21 C.C.No.1102/2017
gone through the above cited decision the facts and
circumstances of the cited case are footing different
to the case on hand. Therefore, the said decision will
not come to the aid of the accused.
1