TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (10) TMI 1066
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lant/Complainant, respondent had entered into a loan agreement to get finance for a vehicle and as per the agreement he had to pay the loan amount in monthly installments but he did not pay several installments and outstanding dues hence accumulated. The respondent has issued cheque bearing No. 574684 dated 14.12.2012 amounting to Rs. 4,72,366/- of Punjab National Bank against the partial payment of the loan amount. The complainant deposited the aforesaid cheque in their Bank, ICICI Bank for its clearance but the said cheque was returned dishonoured stating that "Fund Insufficient" in the account of drawer. On 20.12.2012, complainant received the intimation from their Bankers in this regard. Thereafter, appellant/complainant served legal no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es a presumption that there exists a legally enforceable debt or liability as has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rangappa v. Sri Mohan, reported in (2010) 11 SCC 441, despite that learned court below while shifting the burden upon appellant/complainant has held that detail of loan and its repayment, detail of interest and default amount has not been proved by the appellant/complainant, which is against the aforesaid legal presumption and also against the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case i.e. Rangappa (Supra), therefore, revision petition may be allowed by setting aside the order of acquittal passed by trial Magistrate. 4. Earlier respondent/accused was represented by his counse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... legal notice was received by respondent/accused on 5.1.2013, despite that he did not pay the cheque amount. His statement is well supported by aforesaid documents. 8. Mahendra Kumar Sahu (PW-1) has been cross-examined by counsel of respondent/accused. Although he has admitted some suggestion and has denied some suggestion of counsel of the respondent/accused but no such suggestion has been taken that cheque (Ex.P-2) has not been issued by respondent/accused in favour of appellant/complainant or the same is not bearing signature of respondent/accused. Suggestion taken from him by counsel of accused has no worth in this case in respect of legal presumption envisaged under Section 139 of the Act, 1881. 9. In the matter of Rangappa (Supra), ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....said presumption. Although, in the statement recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC, respondent/accused has stated that he has not given any cheque to the complainant but the statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC is not a substantive evidence of defence, but only an opportunity to the accused to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution case of the accused as has been held by the the Apex Court in the case of Sumeti Vij (Supra). Therefore, there is no evidence to rebut presumption that the cheque was issued to discharge the loan amount. Learned court below without considering the provisions contained in Sections 139 & 118 of the Act, 1881 in its proper perspective unnecessarily travelled ....