TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (1) TMI 131
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appeal will hereinafter be referred to as they were arrayed before the trial Court. 3. Shorn of unnecessary details, relevant aspects of the matter are as follows: The complainant and the accused are friends. They wanted to start production of film in the year 2010. The complainant spent an amount of Rs.42.00 lakhs till 2003 in that regard. Therefore, the complainant and the accused entered into an agreement of settlement on 20.8.2013 wherein the accused agreed to pay a sum of Rs.9.00 lakhs. The accused issued five cheques vide Exs.P.1, P.4, P.6, P.8 and P.10 in favour of the complainant towards the payment of amount in terms of the above said agreement. When the complainant presented the said cheques into bank for realisation, those we....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n were issued towards legally enforceable debt. 6. The trial Court further observed that in the demand notice the complainant demanded Rs.5,000/- towards the charges of the legal notice besides the cheque amount of Rs.9.00 lakhs, therefore, the said notice is invalid notice and hence the complainant violated the cardinal ingredient of Section 138 (b) of the NI Act. Therefore, the prosecution against the accused is not maintainable. 7. As stated supra, aggrieved by the judgment of the learned trial Court acquitting the accused of the said offence the complainant preferred the present criminal appeal. 8. Sri Shyam S. Agrawal, the learned counsel for the complainant, attacking the judgment of the trial Court, contended vehemently that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ple laid down under Section 138 (b) of the NI Act? 2) Whether non-production of bank statement / IT return by the complainant would vitiate the complaint itself? 3) Whether the complainant had discharged the onus and whether the accused failed to discharge the onus on his part? and if so, 4) Whether the judgment under appeal is liable to be set aside? 14. In Suman Sethi case (1 supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows : "It is well settled principle of law that the notice has to he read as a whole. In the notice, demand has to be made for the "said amount" i.e. cheque amount. If no such demand is made the notice no doubt would fall .short of its legal requirement Where in addition to "said amount" there is also a claim b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and the fact that certain additional demands incidental to it, in the form of expenses incurred for clearance and notice charges were also made did not vitiate the notice. In a given case if the consolidated notice is found to provide sufficient information envisaged by the statutory provision and there was a specific demand for the payment of the sum covered by the cheque dishonoured, mere fact that it was consolidated notice, and/or that further demands in addition to the statutorily envisaged demand was also found to have been made may not invalidate the same.........." 16. As per the principle laid down in the above decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above cases, to make a valid demand notice as per the proviso of Section....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....akhs alleged to have invested for the production of the film in his income tax returns is not correct because if the complainant did not disclose his income in the Income Tax Return, then the Income Tax Department is well within its rights to reopen the assessment of income of the assessee and to take action as per the provisions of Income Tax Act. 19. As far as the aspect of existence of basic ingredients for drawing of presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act is concerned, the accused did not deny his signature on the cheque in question that had been drawn in favour of the complainant on a bank account maintained by the accused. The said cheque was presented to the bank concerned within the period of its validity and was ....