TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (10) TMI 458
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Mr. S. N. Nandeshwar, for the accused. 3] The case of the Iqbqal Gulamnabi Sheikh (PW1) is as under :The complainant and the accused were acquainted with each other. The complainant used to give handloan to the accused. The complainant gave handloan amount of Rs. 10,000/, Rs. 5,000/, Rs. 50,000/and Rs. 5,000/on 15.4.2002, 30.5.2002, 1.7.2002 and 3.11.2002 respectively. On 16.6.2004, the accused came to the complainant and demanded Rs. 5,000/and issued six cheques for Rs. 2,000/each of the first date of each month from July to December, 2004 and also issued two cheques of Rs. 5,000/each dated 1.1.2005 and 1.2.2005 respectively. Accordingly, the complainant then handed over the amount of Rs. 5,000/to the accused. It is the case of the comp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....shment, the cheques were returned to the complainant, informing therein that there was 'no sufficient funds available in the account of the accused', the complainant sent notice dated 3.5.2005 and demanded the amount of cheques. However, the accused did not repay the amount of cheques. Hence, the complainant lodged the complaint. 8] It is significant to note that during the crossexamination the complainant has explicitly admitted that the cheques in the instant case were given to him towards guarantee and security. The complainant denied that he was given blank cheques. He further admitted that he is indulged in the business of money lending and his licence of money lending business was issued after the cheques were given by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as to be accepted. 12] It is worthy to note that the complaint lodged by the complainant itself depicts the complainant has contended that on 16.6.2004 the accused demanded amount of Rs. 5,000/from him, at that time the complainant was not willing to give him Rs. 5,000/. However, the accused gave him cheques of Rs. 2,000/each on 1.7.2004, 1.8.2004, 1.9.2004, 1.10.2004, 1.11.2004 1.12.2004 and also cheques of Rs. 5,000/each dated 1.1.2005 and 1.2.2005. Considering the credibility, the complainant gave the amount of Rs. 5,000/to the accused on 16.6.2004. The said fact makes amply clear that the dates in serial order 1.9.2004, 1.10.2004, 1.11.2004, and 1.12.2004 (Exh.14 to Exh.17) mentioned on the cheques are not dates of issuing concerned ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n this section shall apply unless- (a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier; (b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque, [within thirty days] of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and (c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice. ....