TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (5) TMI 800
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... vengeance. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the background of the impugned FIR is a complaint case filed by the petitioner against respondent No. 2 on 11.2.2021, wherein, cognizance was taken on 4.8.2021 against respondent No. 2 for offence under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act. Respondent No. 2 got bail in that case on 19.1.2022. Case of the petitioner in the aforesaid complaint case is that the complainant is engaged in the business of sale of jewellery whereas respondent No. 2 is engaged in business of brick kiln. Both were known to each other. On 3.12.2020, respondent No. 2 purchased gold jewellery worth Rs. 20,07,975/- vide sale cum tax invoice at Annexure-2. Respondent No. 2 issued cheque No. 000546....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....veals that since the parties were known to each other very well, respondent No. 2 took loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- in cash in February, 2017 from the petitioner and issued two cheques (one of the same was cheque No. 000546) in favour of the petitioner as security to ensure payment of the aforesaid loan amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-. The two cheques were only signed by respondent No. 2 and cheques were blank otherwise. Respondent No. 2 had handed over two blank letter pads of Diksha Bricks also whereof respondent No. 2 was the proprietor. The letter heads were duly stamped. In between 6.3.2017 to 13.8.2017, respondent No. 2 supplied bricks to the petitioner on request and the total cost of the bricks was 2,43,600/-. Rest amount out of Rs. 3,00,000/- i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ciously instituted to wreak vengeance. Learned counsel next contends that respondent No. 2 by his own admission flouted the mandate of Section 269 ST of The Income Tax Act which stipulates that no person shall receive an amount in cash of 2 lacs or more (a) in aggregate from a person in a day. Likewise, Section 269SS of the said Act provides that no person shall take or accept from any other person in loan or deposit or any specified sum, otherwise than by an account payee cheque or account payee bank draft or use of electronic clearing system through a bank account. According to learned counsel, respondent No. 2 had apparently violated the mandate of law, therefore, such violation by respondent No. 2 cannot be protected under the law....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....therwise valid, the penal provisions of Section 138 would be attracted. 34. If a signed blank cheque is voluntarily presented to a payee, towards some payment, the payee may fill up the amount and other particulars. This in itself would not invalidate the cheque. The onus would still be on the accused to prove that the cheque was not in discharge of a debt or liability by adducing evidence. [...] 36. Even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily signed and handed over by the accused, which is towards some payment, would attract presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in the absence of any cogent evidence to show that the cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt." Again in Anss Rajashekar Vs. A....