TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (1) TMI 747
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dent no.2 approached petitioner for a friendly loan of Rs.3,15,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh Fifteen Thousand Only) in April-July, 2012 and due to good relations with respondent no.2, petitioner gave loan to him with the assurance that he shall return the said amount as early as possible. After much persuasion and request to respondent no.2 for clearance of outstanding amount of Rs. 3,15,000/-, respondent no.2 issued a cheque bearing No.208135 dated 05.01.2014 for a sum of Rs. 2,95,000/- drawn on Punjab & Sind Bank, Kalkaji, New Delhi in favour of petitioner. However, on presentation of the cheque, it was dishonoured due to 'insufficiency of funds' which was informed to the petitioner vide cheque return memo report dated 21.01.2014. The petition....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me is liable to be set aside. Learned MM has erred by ignoring the statement of respondent no.2 recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he has clearly admitted that loan was taken from the petitioner amounting to Rs. 3,15,000/- during the period of April to July 2012 and has further admitted to have issued the cheque in question in favour of petitioner. Moreover, Ld. MM has also overlooked the notice framed under Section 251 Cr.P.C. against respondent no.2 wherein he has admitted to have taken a loan from the petitioner though he alleged to have taken loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- and set up the defence of issuing the cheque in question as security for the loan. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned MM has failed to appr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....July 2012 in cash. However, no specific date has been mentioned in the complaint regarding payments were made to accused/respondent no.2. The petitioner also denied service of legal notice Ex.DW1/C sent by respondent no.2 to her demanding his blank cheques. However, petitioner contended before the Ld. Trial Court that notice Ex. DWl/C was not sent to her on her address. The same was denied by respondent no.2 in his cross-examination and he specially stated that the legal notice was sent on the address of maternal house of the petitioner. The petitioner did not prove that she has severed from her parents but after marriage the address was not of her parents. The legal notice Ex. DWl/C is accompanied with postal receipt Ex. DWl/D, therefor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the petitioner on her testimony dated 10.03.2016 appeared to be similar. Accordingly, the Ld. Trial Court opined that the bare denial of signatures will not come to the rescue of petitioner. 8. It is not in dispute that loan was given in the year 2012. The petitioner has also stated in her complaint Ex.CW1/6 in para 5 that "the accused had issued two other cheques out of which cheque for Rs. 5,000/- was honoured on 08.08.2012 and another of Rs. 15,000/- was dishonoured on 28.12.2012". She has also stated in her cross-examination as CW-1 that "I had received total three cheques from the accused. The first cheque was cleared on 08.08.2012 and second cheque was dishonored vide memo dt. 28.12.2012 and the third cheque was dishonored vide me....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on that the holder of cheque receiving the same of the nature referred to in Section 139 discharged in whole or in part any debt or other liability. Presumptions both under Sections 118 (a) and 139 are rebuttable in nature. Having regard to the definition of terms "proved" and "disproved" as contained in Section 3 of the Evidence Act as also the nature of the aid burden upon the prosecution vis-a-vis an accused it is not necessary that the accused must step into the witness box to discharge the burden of proof in terms of the aforementioned provision." Para 14. It is furthermore not in doubt or dispute that whereas the standard of proof so far as the prosecution is concerned is proof of guilt beyond all reasonable doubt, t....