TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (1) TMI 99
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of the appellant/complainant is that it is a private Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of chits and financing. The 1st respondent/accused had subscribed two chits from the Anchal branch of the appellant Company each having the sala value of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The chits were prized by the accused in the month of July, 2007 and the amount was received by him. However, he defaulted the payments towards prize chits and as on 11.4.2011 an amount of Rs. 1,88,900/- become due. In discharge of the said liability, the 1st respondent issued a cheque bearing No.518046 for Rs. 1,88,900/- drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Adoor branch. However, the said cheque was dishonoured when presented for collection throug....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns whereas the appellant has examined two witnesses in support of the same and Exhibits P8 and P9 series would clearly indicate the transactions between the appellant and the 1st respondent-accused. The learned counsel also placed reliance upon Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar [2019(1)KHC 774(SC)]. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent opposes the said contention by pointing out that the judgment rendered by the learned Magistrate is legally sustainable and it does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting any interference of this Court. 8. Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act contemplates a presumption that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrumen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the maker or acceptor thereof by means of an offence or fraud, or for unlawful consideration, the burden of proving that the holder is a holder in due course lies upon him." Similarly, another presumption contemplated under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instrument Act is that, unless contrary is proved, the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in Section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability. Therefore, once it is proved that a negotiable instrument has been executed and handed over to the payee thereof the presumption as contemplated under the aforesaid provision comes into play. Unless the said presumption is rebutted by the accused by adducing some evidence, the cour....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....respondent - accused that he either signed the cheque or parted with it under any threat or coercion. Nor is it the case of the respondent - accused that the unfilled signed cheque had been stolen. The existence of a fiduciary relationship between the payee of a cheque and its drawer, would not disentitle the payee to the benefit of the presumption under S.139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in the absence of evidence of exercise of undue influence or coercion. The second question is also answered in the negative. 40. Even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily signed and handed over by the accused, which is towards some payment, would attract presumption under S.139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in the absence of any cogent evid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gate of the total arrears. Apart from the above, in the light of presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the appellant is entitled to succeed. In this case, the 1st respondent could not make out any case by adducing any evidence or otherwise to rebut the presumption available in favour of the appellant. As held in Bir Singh's case (supra) in the absence of any such evidence rebutting the said presumption, it has to be held that Ext.P2 cheque was drawn in discharge of an existing liability. Thus in the light of the presumption under Section 139 which stands unrebutted and also the supporting materials in the form of Exts.P8 and P9 series, I find that the cheque was issued in discharge of a legal liability towards the....