TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (12) TMI 508
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the N.I. Act'). 2. The summary of the case of the complainant in the Trial Court is that the accused (respondent herein) had entered into an agreement with the complainant (appellant herein) in respect of a vehicle bearing Registration No. KA-20/A-5018 and towards the amount due in respect of the said loan amount, the accused on 16.08.2007 issued a cheque to the complainant for a sum of Rs. 7,90,000/- bearing No.805442 drawn on Karnataka Bank, Hangalur. The complainant presented the said cheque for encashment through its banker HDFC Bank. However, the said cheque came to be dishonoured with the banker's endorsement 'funds insufficient'. Thereafter the complainant got issued a legal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he alleged dishonoured cheque said to have been issued by the accused at Ex.P1. The signature of the drawer of the instrument which is said to be of accused was marked as Ex.P1(a). The banker's memo issued while returning the dishonoured cheque were marked at Exs. P2 and P3 and copy of the legal notice said to have been sent by the complainant to the accused, its postal receipt, certificate of posting, the postal acknowledgement were marked as Exs.P4, P5, P6 and P7 respectively. The signature of the accused in Ex.P7 was marked at Ex.P7(a). General power of attorney said to have been given by the complainant company in favour of PW-1 was marked at Ex.P8. The loan agreement said to have been executed by the accused in favour of the compla....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the alleged loan transaction with the complainant company. However, he only disputes the existence of any legally enforceable debt as on the date of presentation of the cheque at Ex.P1. From this, it remains as an undisputed fact that by virtue of the loan agreement as per Exs.P9 and P10, the accused had availed financial facility from the complainant -establishment which had taken over or cleared the loan liability of the accused with the UTI Bank. 10. Regarding the issuance of cheque at Ex.P1, the accused has not specifically denied or disputed the same. On the other hand, in the cross-examination of PW-1, the accused had made suggestion at more than one place to the effect that the cheque issued by the accused to the complainant was no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tted the presumption formed in favour of the complainant, in the very cross-examination of PW-1, as such, there was no necessity for the accused to enter witness box. Since the complainant has failed to prove the existence of legally enforceable debt even though the cheque has been dishonoured for insufficiency of funds, the Trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused from the alleged offence. 13. From the above discussion it is established that cheque at Ex.P1 was issued by the accused to the complainant which got dishonoured for insufficiency of funds as per banker's endorsement at Exs.P2 and P3. The issuance of a legal notice and its service upon the accused is also not in dispute and they stand established through Exs.P4, P5, P6 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....what amount the rebate was given. This goes to show that though the alleged statement of accounts shows a rebate of Rs. 1,75,569/- but it does not specifically show as to how that amount was arrived at? It does not even mention whether the insurance premium of Rs. 40,000/- which according to PW-1 was paid by the accused herself was included in the said rebate. Therefore it goes to show that since the accused in Ex.P11 has shown a sum of Rs. 40,000/- as a liability towards the insurance amount in spite of the admitted fact that the said amount was paid by the accused, the very correctness and trustworthiness of the statement of accounts at Ex.P11 becomes doubtful. 15. Similarly the very same statement of accounts though gives a deduction of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be able to show that Ex.P11 cannot be accepted as a true account statement of the alleged outstanding loan. Since the very cheque amount which is at Rs. 7,90,000/- is said to have been issued on the basis of the alleged outstanding amount shown in Ex.P11 and in view of the fact that Ex.P11 itself is proved to be not safe to accept as a true account extract, then, it is highly doubtful as to the existence of the outstanding liability to an extent of Rs. 7,90,000/- (cheque amount) from the accused towards the complainant as on the date of the presentation of the cheque. Therefore the defence of the accused that there existed no legally enforceable debt equivalent to the cheque amount as on the date of presentation of the cheque gains more re....