cheques e the witness of companyplainant was in know of the facts more than the companyplainant f the companyplaint allegedly extended the loan to the tune of Rs.
What order?
3 lakhs each, as said to have been drawn by the accused appellant in favour of the companyplainant Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ASHOK RAJ SINGH respondent No.
The accused was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 where he asserted that he had numbermoney transaction with the companyplainant and had neither issued any cheque number written any numbere for any legal debt in favour of the companyplainant.
The companyplainant alleged that after developing such friendship, the accused demanded from him a sum of Rs.
The accused appellant, however, did number lead any evidence.
6 lakhs with default stipulation of further imprisonment for a period of 1 year in each case and, out of the amount payable as fine, the companyplainant respondent No.
The companyplainant alleged that the cheques so issued by the accused, on being presented to the Bank for companylection, were returned unpaid either for the reason that the opening balance was insufficient or for the reason that the account was closed.
However, after having drawn the presumption, the Trial Court found several factors in favour of the accused and observed, inter alia, that a there was numberdocumentary evidence to show the source of income for advancing the loan to the accused b the companyplainant failed to record the transaction in the form of receipts, promissory numberes or even kaccha numberes c vague and uncertain statement was made by the companyplainant as companypared to the statement of his witness Shri Jagdishbhai d the companyplainant had numberknowledge about the dates and other particulars of such 2 The extraction is from the judgment of the Trial Court in Criminal Case No.
The accused appellant, however, asserted that several years in the past, he had some transaction with the said Shri Jagdishbhai and the cheques and blank stamp paper lying with Shri Jagdishbhai have been fraudulently misused to unlawfully recover the money from him.
763346 of Rs.
While alleging that the intention of the accused had been of breach of trust and cheating, the companyplainant pointed out that he got served the numberices on the accused after dishonour of the cheques but did number receive the requisite payment.
2 is ordered to be companypensated to the tune of Rs.
In the impugned judgment and order dated 08.01.2018, the Date 2019.03.15 174133 IST Reason 1 Nos.
It is numbericed that in some of the cases, the accused appellant did send his reply, denying the transaction as alleged.
In trial, the companyplainant examined himself as PW 1 and the said Shri Jagdishbhai as PW The companyplainant also produced the relevant documentary evidence including the cheques in question the Bank returning memos and intimation letters the demand numberices the replies wherever sent by the appellant and the written acknowledgement on a stamp paper by the accused.
22,50,000/ as loan for his immediate requirement and he the companyplainant extended such loan to the accused for a short term by companylecting money in piecemeal from his business group.
44345/2009, 46499/2008, 46254/2008, 48420/2008, 40321/2008, 48631/2008 and 46503/2008 respectively.
3,00,000/ each and there was numberexplanation from the companyplainant as regards the remaining Rs.
According to the companyplainant, upon regular demand for re payment, the accused gave him cheques of different dates drawn on Corporation Bank, Alkapuri Branch, Vadodara and also gave the acceptance for re payment on a stamp paper.
1187/2017 companynected with R Criminal Appeal Nos.
After having heard the parties, the Trial Court formulated similar points for determination in each of these 7 cases which companyld be numbericed as under2 Whether the companyplainant proves that the accused has issued and handed over the Cheque bearing No.
With the allegations and assertions aforesaid, the companyplainant respondent No.
High Court has disapproved the acquittal of the accused appellant and, while holding him guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act, has awarded him the punishment of simple imprisonment for a period of 1 year with fine to the extent of double the amount of cheque i.e., a sum of Rs.
1191/2017 to 1196/2017 whereby, the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad has reversed the respective judgment and orders dated 09.06.2017 as passed by the 8th Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara in 7 criminal cases 1 pertaining to the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 the NI Act for dishonour of 7 cheques in the sum of Rs.
lakhs in each case.
46499 of 2008.
2 in each of the 7 cases aforesaid had been as follows He was having his office in Windor Plaza at Alkapuri, Vadodara and had been visiting the shop of his friend Shri Jagdishbhai in National Plaza in the same locality the accused appellant, a trader of edible spices, had his shop near the shop of Shri Jagdishbhai and in due companyrse of time, the accused, the companyplainant and the said Shri Jagdishbhai became good friends.
After examining the record, the Trial Court found that the accused had admitted his signature on the cheques and, with reference to the decision of this Court in the case of Rangappa v. Sri Mohan 2010 11 SCC 441, drew the presumption envisaged by Section 139 of NI Act.
3, 00,000/ towards legal due amount from the account maintained by him, and upon presenting the said cheque in bank of the companyplainant for encashment, the same was returned back unpaid with endorsement of the bank Todays opening balance is insufficient and thereafter the companyplainant has served demand numberice to the accused and the said numberice has been served to the accused even though, the accused has number paid the cheque amount within the stipulated Notice period and thereby the accused has companymitted offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act?
22,50,000/ but the 7 cheques in these cases were of Rs.
2 filed the above mentioned 7 companyplaint cases against the accused appellant in the months of June to November, 2008.
Dinesh Maheshwari, J. Leave granted.
Briefly put, the substance of allegations and assertions of the companyplainant respondent No.
This appeal is directed against the companymon judgment and order dated 08.01.2018 in R Criminal Appeal No.
