TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1425
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts Act, 1881 (for short N.I Act). 2. The parties shall be referred to as complainant and accused as before the trial court. 3. Complaint was filed alleging that on 20.5.2006, accused borrowed an amount of Rs.15 lakhs from the complainant and in discharge of the said liability, accused issued Ext.P1 cheque dated 25.8.2006 drawn on UTI Bank Ltd. Tirupur. Upon presentation of Ext.P1 cheque for encashment, it was bounced due to insufficient funds in the account of the accused. Though the complainant caused to send Ext.P5 lawyer notice, it was returned as 'unclaimed'. Accused failed to pay the amount covered by Ext.P1 cheque and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act. 4. Accused pleaded not guilty to the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt supported the findings of the learned Magistrate and learned Sessions Court and submitted that from the evidence adduced by the complainant, both oral and documentary, it stands established that on 20.5.2006 accused who is a relative of the complainant borrowed Rs.15 lakhs and in discharge of the said liability, the accused issued Ext.P1 cheque. The learned counsel for the complainant placed reliance on the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar (2019(1) KHC 774), K.N.Beena v. Muniyappan and Ors. [(2001) 8 SCC 458], Laxmi Dyechem vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. [(2012) 13 SCC 375] and contended that the presumption under Section 139 N.I Act entails an obligation on the court to presume that the cheque....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red notice which was returned as 'unclaimed'. Complainant has further testified that in spite of Ext.P5 notice, accused failed to pay the amount covered by Ext.P1 cheque. 13. The defence canvassed by the accused was that there was some business transaction between him and the son of the complainant who was examined as PW2; that he used to purchase ornaments from PW2 for his jewellery and used to give it's price after selling the same; that Ext.P1 cheque was issued to PW2 as a security in the said business transaction. Subsequently, when there arose some dispute between him and PW2 qua the weight of ornaments purchased, he stopped his business transaction with PW2. To wreak vengeance, Ext.P1 cheque which was issued to PW2 as a s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cheque issued to PW2 who is son of the complainant as a security for the business transaction, he failed to substantiate the said case canvassed by him. He failed to produce any material on record to rebut the presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the N.I. Act. Per contra, the complainant has succeeded in establishing that Ext.P1 cheque was issued in discharge of his liability to pay the amount of Rs.15 lakhs due to the complainant. 18. The evidence on record would show that accused and the complainant are relatives and there was close acquaintance between them. This Court finds no reason to disbelieve the version of PW1 that accused borrowed an amount of Rs.15 lakhs from the complainant and in discharge of the said liability, accus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ue Ext.P5 notice to the accused intimating the factum of dishonor of cheque and demanding the amount covered by Ext.P1 cheque. Ext.P5 notice was returned with endorsement 'addressee absent', 'intimation served', 'unclaimed'. Thus, it is evident that there is deliberate non acceptance of notice by the accused. The endorsement in Ext.P5 would show that Ext.P5 was returned with endorsement as 'unclaimed". The endorsement in Ext.P5 would also reveal that in spite of intimation, accused failed to collect the notice. The correctness of the endorsement made by the postman can be rebutted by the addressee by adducing evidence to the contrary. But the accused failed to do so. 23. The initial burden to prove that upon rec....