2020 (1) TMI 1645

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (Act for short hereinafter). The parties would hereinafter be referred to as the appellant and the respondent for brevity sake. 2. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant challenged the same on the grounds that the learned Trial Court had misdirected itself on facts and in law while passing the impugned judgment. The learned Trial Court failed to consider the statutory presumptions that arose in favour of the appellant under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act and further to evaluate the evidence adduced by the appellant bearing in mind the said statutory presumptions. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class failed to consider that the respondent no. 1 had admitted that he h....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e, learned Advocate for the appellant and Shri R. Dessai, learned Advocate for the respondent and decide the appeal appropriately. 4. i have heard Shri S. Bhobe learned Advocate for the appellant and Shri Rohan Dessai, learned Advocate for the respondents and besides considering the judgment under challenge. 5. The respondent canvassed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class that there was a misappropriation in the appellant's society and more particularly that the date in the loan application had been altered for which there was no initial and the manipulation was done by the chairman of the complainant. Besides, it was his further contention that the appellant had not proved the agreement alleged to be with the respo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ould not identify the signature of the respondent and there was alteration in the date of the loan application which had been changed from 23.06.2009 to 03.06.2009 and unaccounted on behalf of the complainant. Besides, it was also observed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class that the first digit of the date had been altered in the loan application and it did not bear any initials of the respondent for the said alteration. 7. Although the complainant had produced the resolution for the sanction of the loan in favour of the respondent/accused, the same was dated 17.06.2009 unlike the loan application which was dated 23.06.2009 and which date too bore erasures without any initials. In that context the learned Judicial Magistrate....