TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (9) TMI 1239
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....deciding this appeal are that three cheques dated 27th September, 2006, 4th October, 2006, and 6th October, 2006 for amounts of Rs. 1,25,000/-, Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- respectively, issued by the respondent got dishonoured and the appellant filed a complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act against the respondent after service of a Notice of Demand as the respondent failed to pay the amount despite notice of demand. Notice under Section 251 Cr. P.C. was served upon the respondent, the respondent took no specific defence and only pleaded not guilty. The appellant by way of an affidavit led his own evidence testifying that cheques were issued to him after he had advanced loan of Rs. 2.25 lakh to the respondent. The dishonour memo of the ch....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....law. Section 6 of N.I. Act defines Cheque as under: "A ''cheque" is a bill of exchange drawn on a specified banker and not expressed to be payable otherwise than on demand and it includes the electronic image of a truncated cheque and a cheque in the electronic form" A bare definition of cheque shows that cheque is a Bill of Exchange drawn on specified banker and is an order by drawer on his own agent i.e. bank for payment of certain sum of money to the bearer or the order to person in whose favour cheque is drawn. This order of payment by person to the holder of cheque is not made in casual manner just for the sake of fun. This order is made for consideration and that is why Section 139 of the N.I. Act provides that the ho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ad as part of evidence. The accused has an option to examine himself as a witness. Where the accused does not examine himself as a witness, his statement under Section 281 Cr. P.C. or 313 Cr. P.C. cannot be read as evidence of the accused and it has to be looked into only as an explanation of the incriminating circumstance and not as evidence. There is no presumption of law that explanation given by the accused was truthful. In the present case, the accused in his statement stated that he had given cheques as security. If the accused wanted to prove this, he was supposed to appear in the witness box and testify and get himself subjected to cross examination. His explanation that he had the cheques as security for taking loan from the compla....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... made by the complainant that instead of sending reply, blank sheets of paper were sent in envelope to the complainant. 7. The respondent has placed reliance on Krishna Janardhan Bhat v. Dattatraya G. Hegde, 2008 Crl. L.J. 1172, which is also the case relied upon by the Trial Court. In this judgment itself Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically observed that Court should not be blind to the ground realities and the rebuttal of presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act would largely depend upon the factual matrix of each case. The Trial Court in this case turned a blind eye to the fact that every accused facing trial, whether under Section 138 of N.I. Act or under any penal law, when charged with the offence, pleads not guilty and takes....