TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 1320
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d. With that acquaintance, accused borrowed a sum of Rs.6 lakhs from the complainant by way of hand loan to meet the expenses of construction of house. Towards repayment of the same, he issued cheque dated 10.01.2013 for Rs.6 lakhs drawn on his account with an assurance that, it will be honoured on presentation. Accordingly, complainant presented the cheque through her banker. However, it was returned dishonoured with endorsement "Funds insufficient". Complainant got issued legal notice to the accused to both his residential and working address. It is duly served. However, accused has neither paid the amount due nor sent any reply. Without any alternative complaint is filed. 4. After due service of summons, accused appeared before the tria....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Crl.A.No.100248/2015 Dt: 30.05.2023 (iii) C.Anoop Vs. Krishnappa (Anoop) Crl.RP.No.518/2019 Dt: 02.01.2024 12. Heard arguments and perused the record. 13. Thus, it is the definite case of complainant that accused borrowed hand loan of Rs.6 lakhs and issued the subject cheque towards repayment of the same. However, when presented it came to be dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. Despite due service of notice, accused has not chosen to either pay the amount due under the cheque or send any reply. 14. Accused has denied the entire case put forth by the complainant, including the averments that he is known to the complainant and with that acquaintance borrowed hand loan of Rs.6 lakhs for putting up construction of house. Despite serv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) The accused was bound to make payment as had been agreed while issuing cheque in favour of the complainant. 17. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tedhi Singh Vs Narayan Das Mahant (Tedhi Singh) 2022 SCC OnLine SC 302, where the accused has failed to send reply to the legal notice, challenging the financial capacity of the complainant, at the first instance, complainant need not prove his financial capacity. However, at the trial if the financial capacity of complainant is challenged, then it is for the complainant to prove the same. As noted earlier in the present case though the accused has sent reply, therein he has not challenged the financial capacity of complainant, but at trial he has challenged their financial capacity. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Supreme Court and having regard to the fact that accused has challenged the financial capacity of complainant, at the outset it is necessary to examine whether the complainant has proved her financial capacity, after which it would be necessary for the accused to prove his defence. 22. During her cross-examination complainant has stated that she is a home maker not having any avocation or income of her own. Though she has stated that her husband is doing Timber business, having 4 acres of land at Mallenahalli and 18 acres of land at Kalavase, belonging to the joint family, no documents are produced to evidence the said fact. Her cross-examination reveal that she and her family members are living in a rented house on monthly rent of Rs.5,0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lleged transaction or it was already available with the complainant. 24. This fact assumes importance as the accused has taken up a specific defence that complainant, Smt.Kalavathi - the wife of accused and other women were running chit fund and at that time complainant had taken a blank cheque belonging to the accused and though the wife of accused has paid the amount due under the chit transaction, the subject cheque belonging to the accused remained with the complainant and misusing the same, she has filed the complaint. Ex.D1 is the pass book of account maintained by Smt.Kalavathi in Syndicate Bank. It shows withdrawal of Rs.20,000/- on 27.08.2012 and Rs.45,000/- on 25.09.2012 by Smt.Geetha H.K i.e., the complainant. This supports the ....