TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 1349
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s running dalali mandi business at APMC Yard, Davanagere dealing as commission agency for agricultural produce brought by the agriculturist to his shop. The accused is an agriculturist having agricultural land at Chikkabidari Village. For the maintenance of his agricultural land, the accused used to borrow money from the complainant for purchase of seeds, manure, pesticides and also for purchase of tractor, reimbursement of tractor loan, agricultural implements, for improvement of his land etc. There was a balance of Rs. 5,25,000/- which was due from the accused as per ledger balance dated 24.05.2006. When the complainant demanded for payment of the outstanding debt, which was not cleared by the accused inspite of stipulated period, and on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... drawn a legal presumption in favour of the complainant. The accused has failed to rebut the presumption by adducing any cogent evidence. The appellant has proved the existence of debt, issuance of cheque, dishonouring of cheque in question for insufficient amount. The accused has also failed to reply to the legal notice and failed to honor the cheque by making the payment mentioned therein within the stipulated time. Hence, all the ingredients of Section 138 of N.I. Act has been fulfilled and inspite of that the trial Court on an erroneous consideration acquitted the accused. The learned counsel contends that the reasons assigned by the trial Court are not in accordance with law. Accordingly, he seeks to allow the appeal. 7. Per contra, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....plaint averments. According to him for the maintenance of his agricultural land, accused used to borrow loan from him and there was a balance of Rs. 5,25,000/- as per ledger balance dated 24.05.2006. In this connection, the accused issued a cheque which was dishonored. 9. Accused has not disputed that Ex. P1-cheque does not belong to him. He has also not disputed the signature found in the cheque. However, it is the specific case of the accused that he was due only a sum of Rs. 24,800/- and when he requested the complainant to receive the said amount without interest the complainant did not agree. The settlement also did not work out. Thereafter the complainant by persuading him, took him to Jilla Valmiki Girijana Pattina Sahakara Sangha L....