2007 (12) TMI 532

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lso been imparted training at the cost of the Management; subsequently, after having worked for three months, respondent left the service of the company and thereby caused loss to the appellant. As such, complaint came to be filed by the appellant stating that by virtue of the agreement when the cheque had been issued it becomes enforceable debt. As against it, the trial Court, after enquiry, dismissed the complaint on the ground that there is a contract between the parties and there is a breach of contract and although, the cheque was issued for Rs. 2 lakhs by way of damages, it is purely a civil transaction and as such, the accused is not guilty of the offence alleged and accordingly, has acquitted him. 4. Along with this appeal an app....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ai he returned back to Bangalore and thereafter he was harassed by the complainant It is his specific contention that violating the human rights he has been exploited and he had been removed from the service; the cheque was obtained under coercion and that he has not voluntarily given the cheque; the date and other contents in the cheque are being forged by the complainant except the signature. Accordingly, it is contended that he is not liable to pay the cheque amount Further according to him the cheque so collected by him is not towards any liability by way of debt and it was given only as a matter of security; even the complainant had obtained the award in conciliation, as such, the complaint is not maintainable since simultaneously two ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments act provides for the initial presumption in favour of the complainant unless the contrary is proved. In the instant case the initial presumption has been rebutted by the probable defense taken by the respondent stating that although there was an agreement entered into, there is no such violation of the contract of employment, since the complainant had transferred him from Bangalore to Mumbai which has worked out hardship to him, the said contingency has made him to return back from Mumbai to Bangalore as he was hardly paid Rs. 5,000/- and it was not even sufficient to meet out his day to day expenses. 11. The very transaction and the issuance of cheque was only in respect of the contract employm....