TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (10) TMI 1506
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e known to each other. The accused was doing hotel business. The accused has requested a hand loan of Rs. 4,50,000/- for his hotel business and accordingly, the complainant advanced Rs. 4,50,000/- on 10.11.2006. The accused had agreed to repay the loan amount within two months with interest at the rate of 2% per month. Thereafter, towards repayment, the accused has issued a cheque for a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/-. When the same was presented for encashment, the same was returned with an endorsement, 'insufficient funds'. Hence, the complainant got issued the legal notice on 18.01.2007 calling upon the accused to pay the amount. Despite service of notice, he did not pay the amount and also did not give any reply. Hence, the complaint was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act? 2. What order? Point Nos.1 and 2: 7. The factual matrix of the case is that, the respondent/ accused has taken a hand loan of Rs. 4,50,000/- from the complainant for his hotel business and he also agreed to repay the same with interest at the rate of 2% per month. However, he failed to repay the same with interest and hence, legal notice was issued. In spite of service of legal notice, the respondent/accused did not give any reply. Hence, the complaint was filed. 8. The complainant, in order to substantiate his case examined himself as P.W.1 and two other witnesses as P.Ws.2 and 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P8. The complainant in his evidence reiterates that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts that in the cheque the accused has not included the interest amount and no document was produced in respect of the interest. It is also elicited that he has not produced any document to show that he was having the money to advance the amount. The Manager of the bank is also examined as P.W.2 with regard to the memo in terms of Ex.P2. 9. P.W.2 is a official of the bank. In the cross- examination of P.W.2, it is elicited that there is a difference in the signature in Ex.P1 and Ex.D4(a). He also admits that P.W.1 is also the account holder and he was doing the business from long back. 10. P.W.3 is an official of Canara Bank, who has produced the document as per Ex.P7. In his cross-examination, it is elicited that based on Ex.P2, he....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....imself and complainant, there was no difficulty for him to give notice to the complainant. It is suggested that since he has repaid the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-, no further action was taken against him and the witness replies that he has not taken any loan from the complainant. It is elicited from the mouth of D.W.1 that the cheque which was given by him to the complainant was returned with an endorsement 'insufficient funds'. It is suggested that, he is falsely deposing that complainant has misused his cheque and the same was denied. He also admits that he did not give any complaint when the cheque was stolen by the complainant from 2007, till date. 12. Having considered both oral and documentary evidence available on record and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is a clear admission on the part of the accused regarding returning of cheque given by him with an endorsement 'insufficient funds', the Trial Court ought not to have dismissed the complaint on the ground that the complainant has not proved his source for advancing a hand loan to the tune of Rs. 4,50,000/-, no doubt in the cross-examination of P.W.1, it is elicited that he has not produced any proof with regard to the source for advancing such amount. 15. As already pointed out, the accused has not given any reply to the notice and also in the cross- examination, he categorically admits that the cheque has bounced on account of no sufficient fund in the bank account of the accused. Mere non-producing of the document before the C....