TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (4) TMI 763
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Udaipur, Gomati Tripura in Case No. CR (NI) 32 of 2018. 3. Briefly stated, what is emanated from the complaint that the respondent no. 2, herein, requested the complainant on 20.05.2018 to provide him a sum of Rs. 2 lakh only as loan. Initially, the complainant was little bit hesitant, but, later on, on further request from the part of respondent no.2, he paid Rs. 2 lakh to him. The respondent no. 2 assured the complainant that he would return the said amount of money to him within two months from that date. It is the further plea of the complainant that the respondent no. 2 also has given a written declaration on a stamp paper of Rs. 10/- (rupees ten) only stating that he would return the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dence as DW-1. He has also produced another witness, namely, Sri Rupak Debnath, who deposed as DW 2. After closure of recording of evidences, the respondent-accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C where he denied all the allegations levelled against him and claimed that those statements were false. Thereafter, having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties, the learned trial court held that the complainant has failed to establish the fact that he had any enforceable debt to the respondent no. 2, and accordingly, dismissed the complaint acquitting the respondent no. 2. Being aggrieved, the complainant has preferred the instant appeal before this court. 5. Mr. J. Debbarma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not denied by the issuer of the cheque, but, that presumption is rebuttable as contemplated under Section 118(a) of the NI Act as well as under Section 139 of the said Act. According to Mr. Acharjee, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2, in the instant case, the accused-respondent no. 2 has successfully rebutted the evidence let in by the complainant that the complainant had an enforceable debt to the accused-respondent no. 2. Mr. Acharjee, learned counsel has drawn my attention to the fact that, there is one common fact in the instant case as regards that both the complainant and the respondent no. 2 have deposed that at the time of giving the cheque there was a written declaration given by the respondent no. 2 on a stamp paper of Rs.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntroversy withhold such evidence, then adverse inference under section 114 g of the Evidence Act ought to be drawn against such a party inspite of the fact that the onus of proof may not lie on. The Hon'ble Apex Court re-iterated this in the case of Ritesh Chakarvati versus State of MP reported in (2006) 12 SCC 321. Also, in the case of Vijoy Kumar versus Laxman and others reported in (2013) 3 SCC 86, the Hon'ble Apex Court has had drawn adverse inference against the prosecution, due to non-examination of a vital witness by the prosecution and has upheld the acquittal of the respondent". 8. I concur with the opinion of the learned trial judge that oral evidence can be manufactured and that is why if a transaction is created in writing, t....