TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 892
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ents Act, 1881 ('N.I. Act' hereinafter) of learned M.M dated 02.01.2013 has been set aside by Learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi in Criminal Appeal No.07/13 titled 'Bhairon Ghosh vs. S.L. Aggarwal' and the Respondent has been acquitted. 2. The facts in brief as stated by the Revisionist/Complainant in his Complaint under Section 138 NI Act, was that Cheque bearing No.403621 dated 05.09.2007 drawn on South Indian Bank, Delhi in discharge of his liability towards a friendly loan of Rs. 2 lakhs on 20.08.2007 taken by him from the Complainant/ Revisionist but was dishonoured on presentation for the reasons "funds insufficient" vide Bank Memo dated 13.09.2017. 3. A Legal Notice of Demand dated 26.09.2007 through registered cover whic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the evidence of both the parties, concluded that the Complainant was unable to prove that there existed any legally enforceable debt in respect of the impugned cheque. The Order of Conviction was thereby set aside and the Respondent was acquitted. 10. Aggrieved by the said acquittal, the Revision Petition has been filed, wherein the impugned Order has been challenged on the ground that the story of having taken a loan from Gurmeet Kaur was introduced for the first time in his testimony as DW1 which is contradictory to his stand taken earlier. The document Ex.DW3/A purportedly which recorded the repayment of loan to Gurmeet Kaur and the cheque given by him to Gurmeet Kaur being misplaced, on which the Respondent/accused had heavily relied ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndorsement at point B has not been made in her handwriting. She also admitted that she was never called by the Police to make an enquiry in regard to the document Ex.DW3/A. She further admitted that the writing at point C on DW3/A was not her's. She in her cross-examination stated that she had received the loan amount in the Police Station, but immediately thereafter she asserted that Ex.DW3/A was written while she was standing on the road on her way to her house and the accused/Respondent at the same time had handed over the money to her. There are material contradictions in the testimony of DW3 which is not reliable. 14. It is further contended that had the cheque been actually handed over by Respondent to DW3, she would have reported to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on 20.08.2007 was intended to be returned within 15 days on or before 05.09.2007. The circumstances in which the alleged loan had been taken for 15 days, needed to be explained but the Complainant has failed to completely do so. There is , therefore, a peculiar situation of loan of Rs. 2 lakhs being given to the Respondent though claimed to be friendly, but practically unknown to the Complainant for 15 days. Interestingly, at the time of granting this loan, no document was executed in proof thereof which raises a suspicion considering that Complainant had met the Respondent only once as per his testimony. Pertinently, he asserts that a Cheque had been given to him of Rs. 2 lakhs on 05.09.2007, which was the date on which alleged loan amoun....