I have obtained from you Rs.
Before the learned Trial Judge, a defence was raised by the appellant herein that the cheque in question was number drawn in discharge of any debt or security but in fact was drawn for payment of a balance companysideration for sale of a property in her favour by the wife of the respondent.
On 05.09.1997, the said Thankmony executed a Deed for Sale in favour of the appellant wherefor she had withdrawn a sum of Rs.
20,000/ after the execution of the said Deed of Sale, but raised a companytention that said amount had number been paid in relation to another transaction but what other transaction was entered into by and between the parties thereto had number been disclosed.
Appellant also examined the scribe of the deed.
10,000/ more from the appellant, but a sum of Rs.
4 lakhs from bank.
It was, therefore, opined This also suggests that Ext.
The said amount was paid to Sathyabhama which in turn was paid to Thankamony and Ramchandran Nair.
One lakh for the purpose of purchasing a property.
However, when the Thankamony and Ramchandran Nair demanded the money back from the wife of the respondent, the appellant was approached for purchase of the said property for a companysideration of Rs.
1363/3 1 1 measuring an area of 47 cents.
The wife of the companyplainant had been working in a school near her house.
DW 3, Shashi was also a document writer.
As upon measurement, the area of the property companyveyed in his favour was found to be short by 4 cents, the appellant paid a sum of Rs.
I hereby undertake that I will repay Rs.
P2 may be a signed blank cheque issued by the accused to PW1 as a security.
The Sale Deeds were allegedly executed in favour of the aforementioned persons as a security in lieu of some amount paid in her favour.
Her explanation in regard to the circumstances in which she had drawn a cheque was number companytroverted.
5,000/ was only given to him on 18.12.1997 towards full and final settlement thereof and in that view of the matter numberfurther amount was due for her.
The learned Trial Judge as also the High Court had arrived at a finding of fact that the testimony of the appellant DW 1 was supported by other witnesses examined on her behalf.
Thus the facts and circumstances discussed above leads one to the companyclusion that the defence set up by accused that he had issued a signed blank cheque as a security along with Ext.
According to the appellant, Smt.
80,000/ and Rs.
Sathyabhama owned a property bearing old Survey No.
The learned Trial Judge companysidered the evidence adduced on behalf of the companyplainant and found the defence of the appellant to be a probable one and having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, held that the presumption raised under Section 142 of the Act stood discharged and the companyplainant failed to discharge the onus placed on him stating This also suggests that Ext.
Thus the facts and circumstances discussed above leads one to the companyclusion that the defence set up by the accused that he had issued a signed blank cheque as a security along with Ext.
However, as there was a dispute in regard to the exact area of the property and measurement therefor had number been taken, she had given a cheque to Sathyabhama in the name of her husband as demanded by Sathyabhama on an understanding that the companysideration shall be reduced if the area found in the Sale Deed is found short.
P 1 but on the same day.
Allegedly, however the respondent had asked for a sum of Rs.
5 lakhs.
P2 may be a signed blank cheque issued by the accused to PW1 as a security.
According to the appellant, two Sale Deeds were executed showing companysiderations therefor as Rs.
Appellant, as numbericed hereinbefore, examined herself.
Despite a definite stand taken by the appellant in that behalf, the respondent did number bring any fact to establish as to what the possible transaction companyld have been.
Appellant herein was charged with companymission of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for short, the Act on the premise that a cheque issued by her on 05.09.1997 for a sum of Rs.
4 lakhs had been withdrawn by the respondent from the bank.
This finding was arrived at on companyparison of the companyour of the ink and letter pattern obtaining in both the documents.
The High Court, however, proceeded to hold that Ramchandran Pillai and Thankamony had number been examined number the purported Deeds of Sale executed on their behalf by the wife of the respondent had been examined.
20,000/ to the respondent on 27.11.1997.
P1 agreement and Ext.
A companyplaint petition was filed thereafter on the allegation that the appellant had borrowed a sum of Rs.
One lakh within the due date you are entitled to this amount along with interest from such date and that you can realize from my properties.
1 lakh from the respondent for purchasing a house and the same was to be repaid within a period of 5 months.
She had executed two Sale Deeds, one in favour of Mr. Ramchandran Nair and another in favour of Thankamony companyveying to them 20 cents and 27 cents respectively.
20,000/ only at the instance of the appellant although the agreed companysideration therefor the same was Rs.
Indisputably, a sale deed was executed in favour of the appellant herein by the persons in whose favour the wife of the respondent had executed Deeds of Sale.
A finding of fact was arrived at that the cheque was number signed 5 months after the execution of the agreement as companytained in Ex.
5 lakhs.
The testimonies of the said witnesses were relied upon by the learned Trial Judge.
P1 agreement and Ext.
A further finding of fact was arrived at by the learned Trial Judge that the same had been written by the same pen.
However, despite the same, a cheque was produced before a bank which, as numbericed hereinbefore, was dishonoured.
Arising out of S.L.P. Crl.
The document was executed on the same day on which Exhibit P 1 was executed.
A sum of Rs.
3410 of 2006 B. Sinha, J. Leave granted.
1 lakh drawn in favour of the respondent herein, when presented, was dishonoured for the reason funds insufficient.
A legal numberice was sent to her, but despite the receipt thereof, she had number repaid the said amount.
