TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (6) TMI 295
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....It is the case of the appellant/complainant that the respondent/accused had borrowed a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs in the first week of December 2006, promising to repay the same within six months. The Respondent borrowed the loan from the Appellant to extend the class building of the school and to purchase furniture. In lieu of having received the amount from the Appellant, the Respondent has issued a cheque bearing No. 232856 dated 25.06.2007 for a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs drawn on Central Bank of India, Kathriguppe, Bengaluru. 3. When the Appellant presented the said cheque through his banker on 05.07.2007, he received a message from the Bank that the cheque had been dishonored, with a shara as "funds insufficient". The Appellant had issued a legal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enied the transaction with the Appellant, that itself would not be sufficient to rebut the presumption as to how the signed cheque had reached the Appellant. The Respondent contended that he had borrowed a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from the mother-in-law of the Appellant, and he has cleared the amount. In spite of having cleared the amount which he has borrowed from the mother-in-law of the Appellant, it has been misused by the complainant. The cheque in question had been issued for security. The mere allegation about the transaction would not be sufficient to rebut the presumption. Hence, the Respondent is entitled to repay the amount mentioned in Ex. P1-cheque. As such, learned Amicus Curiae sought to allow the appeal. Learned Amicus Curiae ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... he knows the Respondent as he used to come to the house of his mother-in-law-Gowramma. With the said acquaintance, the Respondent requested the Appellant to lend him a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs for the development of the school building and also for purchase of furniture. The Appellant, though he had no sufficient money as on that day, borrowed from his co-brother-PW. 2 and handed over the amount to the Respondent. The Respondent in lieu of the said financial transaction, as a token of security, issued a cheque for a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs to the Appellant. 12. The Respondent took a defence that he has not borrowed the amount from the Appellant at any point of time and he has received the amount from the mother-in-law of the Appellant namely Smt. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is the document that shows the financial transaction of PW. 2, that on 26.06.2002, 27.06.2002, 28.06.2002, and 02.07.2002, the amount has been debited in three different transactions. Therefore, the contention of PW. 1 regarding the source of income which he has borrowed from PW. 2 to lend the amount to the Respondent in the year 2006 is doubtful and not tenable. 14. The offence punishable under section 138 of N.I. Act can be completed only with the concatenation of a number of acts. The following are the acts which are components of the offence. (1) drawing of the cheque, (2) presentation of cheque to the bank, (3) returning the cheque unpaid by the drawee Bank, (4) giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque demanding payment ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he other hand, the Respondent has established the fact of money transaction with the mother-in-law of the Appellant through admissions in the cross-examination. Such being the fact, the contention of the Respondent about issuance of the cheque as collateral security to Smt. Gowramma, who is none other than the mother-in-law of the Appellant, cannot be denied. 17. In view of the observations made above, I answer the points which arose for consideration. Point No. 1 is answered in 'Affirmative', by holding that the trial Court is justified in acquitting the accused for the offence punishable under section 138 of N.I. Act. Point No. 2 is answered in the 'Negative,' by holding that the Appellant has not made out grounds to in....