TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 249
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o him a cheque dated 17.05.2006 for Rs. 20,000/- in discharge of a legally enforceable debt. The complainant presented the cheque in the bank. It was dishonoured for the reason that there was no sufficient amount in the account of the accused. The complainant sent a lawyer notice to the accused demanding payment of the amount of the cheque. The accused received the notice. He did not pay the amount. 3. During the trial of the case, PW1 was examined and Exts. P1 to P6 were marked on the side of the complainant. The accused got himself examined as DW1. The trial court held that the complainant failed to prove execution of the cheque by the accused and therefore,found the accused not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....now the details of the accused. He has stated that the accused came to his house with the cheque and signed it and gave it to him. He would say that the amount was then already written in the cheque. 8. The plea of the accused is that he had subscribed to the kuri conducted by the firm 'Crown Kuries' and when he received the kuri amount, he had given a signed blank cheque as security. It is alleged by the accused that the complainant, who is a partner of the firm 'Crown Kuries' has misused the aforesaid cheque and filed the complaint. When examined as DW1, the accused has given evidence to this effect. 9. The trial court has found that the evidence of PW1 regarding the loan transaction and execution and delivery of the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d delivered to him. Corroboration is a rule of prudence and not one of law. Whether corroboration to the evidence of the complainant is required or not would depend upon the circumstances of each case. 14. In the instant case, in the light of the inconsistency in the evidence of PW1 regarding the drawing and delivering of the cheque by the accused, examination of the independent person, who had allegedly seen the accused drawing and delivering the cheque to the complainant, was necessary. But the complainant did not prefer to examine that person as a witness. 13. In the instant case, the accused has raised a plea which is probable and acceptable. He entered the witness box and gave evidence in support of his plea. Admittedly, the compla....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....heque at the time of receiving the kuri amount. 17. In the second place, learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the accused did not send any reply to the statutory notice and absence of reply by the accused to the notice indicates that the case of the complainant is true. The accused (DW1) has stated in examination-in-chief that when he received the lawyer notice from the complainant, he went to the firm and enquired about it and then he was told that if he paid the amount due there, there would not be any problem. It is the reason stated by the accused for not sending any reply. This plea raised by the accused is also very much probable. 18. Even otherwise, merely for the reason that the accused did not send any reply to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he facts and circumstances of that case. It is trite that the courts can take into consideration the circumstances appearing in the evidence to determine whether the presumption should be held to be sufficiently rebutted. 20. In Vijay v. Laxman : (2013) 3 SCC 86, the Supreme Court has observed as follows: "The High Court has rightly accepted the version given by the accused - respondent herein. We say so for reasons more than one. In the first place the story of the complainant that he advanced a loan to the respondent - accused is unsupported by any material leave alone any documentary evidence that any such loan transaction had ever taken place. So much so, the complaint does not even indicate the date on which the loan was demanded ....