2020 (12) TMI 506

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r. 2. The complaint has been lodged by the respondent/complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the revision petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1882. According to the case of the complainant, the revision petitioner/accused borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- on 27.12.2012, Rs. 5,00,000/- on 26.02.2013 and Rs. 5,00,000/- on 31.03.2013 in connection with her daughter's education and for the amount borrowed, she had issued a post dated cheque dated 25.07.2013 for a sum of Rs. 12,00,000/- and when the abovesaid cheque was presented for collection the same had been returned for the reason that the account had already been closed by the revision petiti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the documents marked in support of the complainant's case, particularly, the cheque issued by the revision petitioner/accused marked as Ex.P1 and the return of the cheque by the concerned bank on presentation and the reason adduced therein and the issuance of the legal notice and the receipt of the same by the revision petitioner/accused, it is found that the revision petitioner/accused has not chosen to send any reply to the legal notice sent by the complainant calling upon her to pay the amount involved in the matter. 7. From the materials placed on record, it is found that the revision petitioner/accused has taken a defence that she was having business dealings with the wife of the complainant and in connection with the said busines....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion with the silk business which she had with the complainant's wife. It is found that the dispute had arisen between the revision petitioner/accused and the complainant's wife from April 2013. In such view of the matter, it is found that following the same, the revision petitioner/accused had chosen to lodge the complaint against the complainant's wife. Furthermore, following the dispute between the revision petitioner/accused and the complainant's wife, if really the revision petitioner/accused had given the cheque in question as a security qua the silk business, as rightly held by the courts below, the revision petitioner/accused should have taken appropriate legal action to retrieve the cheque in question either from the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ainant has not placed any material to show his solvency to pay a sum of Rs. 12,00,000/- to the revision petitioner. However, considering the legal notice sent by the complainant and the revision petitioner/accused having not chosen to challenge the same in any manner and the revision petitioner/accused having failed to establish her defence version and in such view of the matter, when no material at all has been projected by the revision petitioner/accused to rebut the presumption raised in favour of the complainant, the courts below are fully justified in holding that the cheque in question issued by the revision petitioner/accused is only in connection with the borrowal of the amount received from the complainant for her daughter's ed....