TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (9) TMI 1210
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dgment dated 20.04.2015, the petitioner was convicted by the trial court and vide order on sentence dated 23.04.2015, he was directed to pay fine of Rs. 25 lacs, out of which Rs. 24 lacs was to be paid to the complainant towards compensation under Section 357(1) Cr.PC and the remaining amount of Rs. 1 lakh was to be deposited with the State, and in default of payment of fine, the petitioner was directed to undergo SI for three months. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was employed with the complainant. The petitioner used to collect the payments on behalf of the complainant from his clients, who was also dealing in the business of real estate as well as shares. As the petitioner used to collect payments ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sel for respondent no.2 submitted that initially a loan of Rs. 15 lacs was given by the complainant to the petitioner in the year 2008. The petitioner also executed a "loan receipt" dated 13.10.2008 in this regard. He further submitted that another loan of Rs. 5 lacs was advanced to the petitioner in the year 2010. The petitioner issued the impugned cheque of Rs. 20 lacs in favour of the complainant which, on presentation, got dishonoured on account of "insufficient funds". It was further submitted that concurrent findings of facts have been recorded by both the trial court as well as the appellate court. Learned counsel in support of his submissions, has relied upon judgments titled Rangappa vs. Sri Mohan reported as (2010) 11 SCC 441 and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bsp; 2) An authorisation letter (Ex. PW1/X-3) issued by the complainant in favour of the petitioner; and 3) Vakalatnama (Ex. PW1/X-4) given by the complainant in favour of the petitioner. 9. Both the Trial Court as well as Appellate Court have disbelieved the defence of the petitioner that the said impugned cheque was given as security. Had that been the case, the same ought to have been mentioned in the "loan receipt" itself. The "loan receipt" clearly mentioned existence of loan of Rs. 15 lacs. The petitioner has not only admitted his signatures but also the handwriting on the said "loan receipt". The trial court has rightly believed the complainant that after accepting the loan of Rs. 15 lacs against wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es and shifts the onus on to the accused" (ibid). Such a presumption is a presumption of law, as distinguished from a presumption of fact which describes provisions by which the court "may presume" a certain state of affairs. Presumptions are rules of evidence and do not conflict with the presumption of innocence, because by the latter all that is meant is that the prosecution is obliged to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The obligation on the prosecution may be discharged with the help of presumptions of law or fact unless the accused adduces evidence showing the reasonable possibility of the non-existence of the presumed fact. 23. In other words, provided the facts required to form the basis of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... principle enunciated in State of Madras vs Vaidyanath Iyer (Supra) and clarified that the distinction between the two kinds of presumption lay not only in the mandate to the Court, but also in the nature of evidence required to rebut the two. In the case of a discretionary presumption if drawn may be rebutted by an explanation which "might reasonable by true and which is consistent with the innocence" of the accused. On the other hand, in the case of a mandatory presumption "the burden resting on the accused person in such a case would not be as light as it is where a presumption is raised under S.114 of the Evidence Act and cannot be held to be discharged merely by reason of the fact that the explanation offered by the accused is reasonab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a debt or in discharge of a liability. It is immaterial that the cheque may have been filled in by any person other than the drawer, if the cheque is duly signed by the drawer. If the cheque is otherwise valid, the penal provisions of Section 138 would be attracted. 34. If a signed blank cheque is voluntarily presented to a payee, towards some payment, the payee may fill up the amount and other particulars. This in itself would not invalidate the cheque. The onus would still be on the accused to prove that the cheque was not in discharge of a debt or liability by adducing evidence. 35. It is not the case of the respondent-accused that he either signed the cheque or parted with it under any threat or coercion. Nor is....