TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 629
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 3,75,000/- [Rupees Three Lakhs Seventy Five thousand Only] from the complainant on 04.04.2004. Towards the said loan, the husband of the accused is said to have executed a demand promissory note on the same date for a sum of Rs. 4,75,000/- [Rupees Four Lakhs Seventy Five Thousand Only] in favour of the complainant. Since this amount was not repaid in spite of demands and requests, in order to discharge the liability of the husband, the wife who has been arrayed as an accused is said to have issued a cheque bearing No.088032 dated 22.11.2005 for a sum of Rs. 3,75,000/- [Rupees Three Lakhs Seventy Five thousand Only]. When this cheque was deposited by the complainant, the cheque was returned with an endorsement ''account closed'....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al Appeal. 6.The learned counsel for the appellant made the following submissions: a)The version of the defense was that this cheque was given towards security for a chit that was conducted by the complainant in which the accused husband had joined. The accused husband had made a bid on 13.01.2003, and with that the entire transaction came to an end and therefore there is no necessity for the husband of the accused to again approach the complainant seeking for a loan in the year 2004 and there is no necessity for the accused to have issued a cheque to the complainant towards discharging the liability of the husband. This version was not taken as a defense at the earliest point of time by way of sending a reply notice to the statutory not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Appellate Court found that the promissory note that was given was a blank promissory note and was signed by one Jagadish as a witness and below his signature the entire address has been typed. Therefore, the best evidence that was available for the complainant in order to prove the loan transaction, was to have called Jagadish as a witness and examined him. The learned counsel for the respondent further contended that the complainant in his evidence has specifically admitted that he is maintaining a Receipts and payments ledger and in that record this so called loan transaction was not even recorded. The learned counsel for the respondent would further submit that the accused has rebutted the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... her husband while bringing the promissory note would have known that one Jagadish will be the witness in the promissory note and therefore the version of the complainant that the promissory note was brought typed by the accused and her husband is not believable. This only substantiates the case of the defense that the promissory note was a blank promissory note that was available with the complainant towards the earlier chit transaction and this promissory note has been typed and used for the purpose of this case. If really the version of the complainant is true, the best evidence that was available for the complainant was to examine Jagadish who is none other than a person who is working in his own office. 9.It is also seen from the reco....