TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1120
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'the NI Act' hereinafter), by the accused on the premise that Ext.P1 cheque for Rs. 4,75,000/- (Rupees Four Lakh Seventy-five Thousand Only), issued by the accused in discharge of the said liability, when presented by the complainant for encashment, the same got dishonoured with the endorsement, "Drawer's signature differs." The further case is that, despite issuance of demand notice, the said amount was not repaid. 4. The trial court proceeded with the trial. During trial, PW1 to PW4 were examined and Exts.P1 to P6 were marked on the side of the complainant, and Exts.X1 and X2 were also marked. No defence evidence was adduced. 5. On appreciation of the evidence, the learned Magistrate found that the complainant had failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and, accordingly, acquitted the accused. Aggrieved by the said acquittal, the complainant has preferred this appeal. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant argued that, through the evidence of PW1 to PW4, the complainant had discharged her initial burden of proving the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... verdict would require interference? (iii) The order to be passed? Point Nos.(i) to (iii) 9. In order to prove the transaction and the execution of Ext.P1 cheque, the complainant herself got examined as PW1 and she deposed in tune with the averments in the complaint. According to her, the accused and the complainant are relatives and that the accused borrowed Rs. 1,75,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Seventy-five Thousand Only) from the complainant on 14.06.2012. Thereafter, on 12.11.2012, the accused borrowed a further sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh Only) at the complainant's residence. On the same day, the accused executed Ext.P1 cheque, dated 13.12.2012, drawn on the Indian Overseas Bank, Mavelikkara Branch, in favour of the complainant towards repayment of the total amount of Rs. 4,75,000/- (Rupees Four Lakh Seventy-five Thousand Only). On presentation, the cheque was dishonoured with the endorsement, "Drawer's signature differs." Thereafter, a statutory demand notice was issued. PW1 testified further that the accused issued the cheque after putting a signature different from her original signature with a view to cheat and defraud the complainant. She fur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ffidavit in lieu of chief examination stating that he was familiar with the complainant. He deposed that the accused had borrowed money from the complainant on 12.11.2012 and had executed a cheque. In cross-examination, he stated that he was a building contractor. He further deposed that the complainant was the owner of three tipper lorries and that he had acquainted with the complainant for the preceding five years. Building construction materials were transported in the lorries owned by the complainant. He also stated that the complainant's husband was a policeman and that he was residing about 6 to 7 kms. away from the complainant's residence. He further deposed that he had gone to the complainant's house about 60 times and that he was doing business with the complainant on a credit basis. According to him, the complainant had paid a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh Only) to the accused, and all the currency notes were of the denomination of Rs. 1,000/-. 14. In the instant case, the learned Magistrate disbelieved the version of PW4, as he did not state the exact amount borrowed by the accused in his chief affidavit, though he had given evidence during cros....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned outstanding. PW1 also denied the said suggestion. 19. As regards the issuance of Ext.P1 cheque, no suggestion denying its execution was put to PW1 during her cross-examination. On the other hand, in the statement given by the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the accused admitted that he had borrowed Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Only) from the complainant in the year 2010 and contended that interest for the amount had been paid pursuant to a compromise arrived at before the police station. The crucial question is whether the evidence discussed above is sufficient to discharge the initial burden cast upon the complainant in the instant case or whether the complainant has failed to discharge the same, thereby rendering the verdict of acquittal to be confirmed. 20. Advancing a loan to a relative, even during subsistence of an earlier liability by itself is not a sufficient reason to disbelieve the complainant's case that she had advanced a further sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh Only) to the accused when the earlier loan of Rs. 1,75,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Seventy-five Thousand Only) remained outstanding, when the parties are admittedly relatives. More....