AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 593
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 3.The crux of the complaint is that the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as cash from the respondent on 15.09.2013 and he promised to return the same within two months. However, the petitioner failed to return the said sum as promised by him. The respondent made demands to pay the said amount. Subsequently, in order to repay the said amount, on 14.11.2013, the petitioner issued a cheque for the said sum in favour of the respondent. It was presented for collection and the same was returned dishonoured for the reason that the 'funds insufficient'. Thereafter, the respondent caused statutory notice and lodged the complaint. 4.On the side of the respondent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iation of a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. While being so, again the respondent had lent a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as a loan, that too, without any security on 15.09.2013. It is highly improbable and not believable one. No prudent man would lend money without any security, that too after issuance of statutory notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for the earlier alleged borrowal of loan. In order to rebut the presumption, the petitioner had examined D.W.1 to D.W.3. D.W.1 and D.W.2 are none other than husband and wife and they are running Shri Venkateswara Finance and Shri Balaji Finance, in which D.W.2 was one of the shareholder and she was also the Managing Director of Shri Balaji Finance. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is drawing only a sum of Rs.18,000/- and odd as take home salary and he had a yearly income not more than Rs. 2,50,000/-. Therefore, he had no source to lend such huge money that too, without any security. Unfortunately, both the Courts below without considering the above facts and circumstances blindly convicted the petitioner. 8.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioner never denied his signature and issuance of cheque. Therefore, the respondent discharged his initial burden as contemplated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and presumed that the cheque was issued for legally enforceable debt as contemplated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 9.The re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as duly received by the petitioner, he did not reply. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he was working as a Lab Assistant and he was drawing a salary for a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month. He also admitted that he is a close friend of D.W.1. He along with the petitioner stood as a guarantor for a third party while availing loan from the said Shri Venkateswara Finance and Shri Balaji Finance. The petitioner also used to borrow the money from the said Shri Balaji Finance for which the respondent stood as a guarantor. 12.On perusal of evidence of D.W.1 revealed that he is the close friend of the respondent. The petitioner used to borrow loans from him and Shri Balaji Finance for which, the respondent stood as a guarantor. While borrowin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....liabilities to the tune of Rs.20,49,075/-, equally he had shown the assets for the said sum. However, at the time of alleged transaction namely on 15.09.2013, he borrowed a jewel loan and from Financier HFL. He also borrowed loans from Adaikalaraj and Revathy. Further, the respondent was working as a Lab Assistant at the time of the alleged borrowal of loan by the petitioner and he was drawing a sum of Rs.2,78,088/- per year. Therefore, the respondent had no source of income other than the salary in order to lend money. 15.On perusal of the evidence of D.W.1 and D.W.2 and P.W.1 revealed that they all closely associated and D.W.1 used to present the cheque which was received as security from the borrowers in the name of the respondent as we....