2021 (12) TMI 895

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the request of respondent/accused the complainant had given his shop to him for the purpose of business. In the said business, the complainant was the sleeping partner. The business was being carried out in the aforesaid shop. The respondent, being in need of money for commercial purpose to run the shop, requested the Complainant to give some loan. On various occasions, total amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- has been taken as loan by the respondent from the complainant. For repayment of the said loan, the respondent handed over a cheque bearing No. 004758 dated 30/11/2016 of ICICI Bank to the Complainant. When the said cheque was submitted for encashment before the Central Bank of India, it got dishonored by the bank. The complainant informed the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....which the loan was given to the accused. He stated in the complaint that in the year 2004 accused had taken loan of Rs. 2 lakhs and in examination-in-chief, loan of Rs. 1 lakh was stated which had been taken by the accused in the year 2000. So the evidence adduced by the complainant himself has not supported the complainant's case. The transactions made with respondent for the money advanced by the complainant, is not clearly established by the Complainant. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly came to the conclusion that the Complainant has not come with clean hands. 7. In Kumar Exports v. Sharma Carpets, (2009) 2 SCC 513, it has been observed in para 20: "The accused in a trial under Section 138 of the Act has two options. He can ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....stion was not supported by consideration or that he had not incurred any debt or liability, the accused may also rely upon circumstantial evidence and if the circumstances so relied upon are compelling, the burden may likewise shift again on to the complainant. The accused may also rely upon presumptions of fact, for instance, those mentioned in Section 114 of the Evidence Act to rebut the presumptions arising under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act" 8. In Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs. Dattatraya G. Hegde,: (2008) 4 SCC 54, it has been held that an accused for discharging the burden of proof placed upon him under a statute need not examine himself. He may discharge his burden on the basis of the materials already brought on record. Following ha....