AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N. Ananda, J.—Crl.A 867/2013 is filed by the complainant against judgment of acquittal of respondent (accused) in C.C. No. 65/2012 dated 22.12.2012 on the file of Civil Judge & JMFC., Ponnampet.
Crl.A 868/2013 is filed by the complainant against. judgment of acquittal of respondent (accused) in C.C. No. 66/2012 dated 22.12.2012 on the file of Civil Judge & JMFC, Ponnampet.
The complainant and accused are the same persons. Therefore, these two matters are taken up for consideration.
I have heard learned counsel for appellant.
The learned trial judge has acquitted the accused for the following reasons:
I The case of complainant that he had lent a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the accused on 15.09.2004 and in order to discharge the liability the accused issued a post dated cheque bearing No. 035997 dated 15.10.2004 for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- drawn on Town Co-operative Bank Limited, Ponnampet in favour of the complainant and the complainant again lent a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the accused on 15.09.2004 and in order to discharge liability, the accused issued a post dated cheque bearing No. 035998 dated 25.10.2004 for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- drawn on Town Co-operative Bank Limited, Ponnampet in favour of the complainant cannot be reconciled.
II The complainant had stated that he had withdrawn a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to pay to the accused as aforestated from Town Co-operative Bank Limited, Ponnampet is falsified from the evidence of DW.4 (Manager of Town Co-operative Bank Limited, Ponnampet) who has deposed that complainant was not maintaining S.B. Account or any other account with Town Co-operative Bank Limited, Ponnampet since 14 years. The complainant has not withdrawn a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 15.09.2004.
III The defence of accused that he had certain chit transactions with one M.P. Raghu and in that connection he had issued signed blank cheques, which have been misused to file the instant complaints, looks probable.
I have reconsidered the matter. The case of complainant that he had lent a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the accused on 15.09.2004 and received post dated cheque bearing No. 035997 dated 15.10.2004 for Rs. 50,000/- (subject matter of C.C. No. 65/2012) and again on the same day, viz., 15.09.2004, the complainant lent another sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the accused and received another post dated cheque bearing No. 035998 dated 25.10.2004 for Rs. 50,000/- (subject matter of C.C. No. 66/2012) looks improbable. If the accused wanted to borrow a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the complainant, it looks improbable that complainant would lend the same in two installments and would receive two separate post dated cheques on the same day.
The complainant has made an unsuccessful attempt to establish that he had maintained Savings Bank Account with the Town Co-operative Bank Limited, Ponnampet and he had withdrawn a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 15.09.2004 to lend the same to accused is falsified from the evidence of DW.4 (Manager of Town Co-operative Bank Limited, Ponnampet) who has categorically deposed that complainant had not maintained any account with Town Co-operative Bank Limited, Ponnampet since 14 years. Therefore, the question of complainant withdrawing a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the said bank on the aforestated date does not arise. The complainant has failed to establish his financial capacity to lend in a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the accused with whom he has no acquaintance or transactions.
The defence of accused that one M.P. Raghu was running a chit business, in that connection the accused had issued blank signed cheques and they have been misused to file the instant complaints is probabilised from the evidence of W.1.
The learned counsel for accused would submit that in view of provisions contained u/s 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the trial court should have raised presumption regarding legally recoverable debt and cheques in question had been issued to discharge legally recoverable debt.
It is true that Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act provides for raising such presumption however, before raising such presumption the complainant. should adduce prima-facie evidence to prove that he had lent the amount to the accused. The evidence of complainant is inherently weak. Therefore, the complainant cannot seek the aid of presumption available u/s 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The law is fairly well settled that accused can rebut the presumption available u/s 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act either by demonstrating that the evidence adduced by complainant is inherently weak or improbable or by adducing defence evidence. The law is fairly well settled that evidence adduced by accused need not prove his defence beyond reasonable doubt. In view of the above discussion, I hold that there are no reasons to interfere with the impugned judgments. The appeals are dismissed without reference to other side.