TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (9) TMI 863
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred with the original ranks occupied by them before the trial court. 3. Brief factual matrix leading to the case are that, the complainant is acquainted with the accused and considering the demand and legal necessity, the complainant has advanced hand loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the accused and the accused assured to repay the same within a short period. Towards discharge of the said hand loan, the accused issued a cheque dated 12.08.2009 for Rs. 2,00,000/- in favour of the complainant. When the said cheque was presented, it was bounced for insufficient of funds. Thereafter, the complainant has issued legal notice to the accused and in s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... perused them in detail. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court is illegal and perverse and there is no proper appreciation of the evidence by the trial court. He would further contend that the trial court ought to have drawn inference in favour of the complainant in view of the presumption available under Section 139 of N.I. Act. He further submits that the trial court has failed to consider the fact that accused has admitted money transaction between the accused and the complainant for Rs. 10,000/- and ought to have held that there was transaction between the parties. He further submits that proper presumption has not been drawn by the trial court which has lead to misc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n amount in short time. It is alleged that in discharge of loan, Ex. P1 cheque dated 12.08.2009 was issued. There is no dispute of the fact that cheque belongs to the accused. The accused has also not disputed his signature on the cheque. However, the accused has taken a defence that in 2005 itself he has availed loan of Rs. 10,000/- from the complainant and repaid the same in installments and as a security, he had issued the cheque by executing a demand promissory note. He placed reliance on the copy of the demand promissory note as per Ex. D1. In view of the fact that accused has admitted his signature on the cheque, the initial presumption is in favour of the complainant under Section 139 of N.I. Act. The burden is on the accused to rebu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e his financial status. The monthly income derived by the complainant is only sufficient to maintain his family. Further, Rs. 2,00,000/- is a huge amount and he advanced loan to a person with whom he had no close acquaintance and that too without there being any security, is a million dollar question. Admittedly, the accused is neither a friend nor relative of the complainant. Hence, the financial status of the complainant itself is in doubt and as such, the accused has created a dent in the case of the complainant. 10. Apart from that, he has also produced Ex. D1 to show that there was a financial transaction in the form of demand promissory note in 2005. No doubt this document is the Xerox copy, but however, while marking the said docume....