Receivedon Registeredon Decidedon Duration

:01/07/2009, :01/07/2009, :31/07/2012. :YYMMDD. 030030.

INTHECOURTOFJUDICIALMAGISTRATEFIRSTCLASS,KURUNDWAD

..ATKURUNDWAD.

(PresidedoverbyP.S.Shinde) SUMMARYCRIMINALCASENO.164/2009.
EXH.NO.

Miss.BebijanBapusahebPatil, Age:62years,Occupation:Household, ..Complainant. R/o.:Aalas,Tal.Shirol, Dist.Kolhapur. Versus Mr.KuberDhanpalAinapure, Age:54years,Occupation:Business,..Accused. R/o.:YaranaSeedsShop,Malbhag, Kurundwad.Tal.Shirol, Dist.Kolhapur. =APPEARANCE= FortheComplainant:AdvocateShri.P.R.Bhendwade, AdvocateShri.D.D.Magdum. FortheAccused :AdvocateShri.B.R.Kumbhar. :JUDGMENT: (Deliveredon31stdayofJuly,2012) The accused in the dock is facing trial for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. (TheAct). Thecaseofthecomplainant,inbrief,isanunder: 02) TheaccusedishavingSeedsshop.Thecomplainantusesto 2..

..2.. purchaseseedsfromshopoftheaccusedforcultivationofagriculture property.Duetosaidtransactions,theirrelationsbecamecordialasto even provide financial help to each other whenever required. In January2003,theaccusedinneedofRs.7,00,000/andherequested thecomplainanttogivefinancialhelpforwhichshecouldarrange. Accordingly, the complainant accumulated amount of Rs.5,00,000/ fromsourceswithinherreachandgiventhatamounttotheaccused. Atthat time, the accused assured for repayment till end of March, 2003. Due to cordial relations, the complainant do not taken any writingfromtheaccusedforgivenamount. 03) Whenthe complainant asked foramountinMarch2003,

the accused given cheque bearing No.507459 by putting signature thereon.Hestatedtofillupchequeandproducesameforencahment after06/04/2003.Whenthecomplainantenquiredwiththeaccused inmonthofApril,hestatedtofillupchequewithname,amountand with date of 10/04/2003. Accordingly, the complainant got the cheque filled up with name, amount and date from her brother Aasmatpasha . Thenafter, she produced cheque with her bank The Kurundwad UrbanBankLtd.,BranchAalas (inshort,'K'wad Bank, Aalas') for it's encahment. But, the cheque returned dishonour on dtd.18/06/2003withendorsementofRefer toDrawer.Therefore, the complainant sent notice to the accused on dtd.18/06/2003 demanding amount ofdishonoured cheque. The accused refused to accept notice in spite of it's intimation. It is received to the complainantondtd.30/06/2003withendorsement'Refused,Returned toSender'.Theaccusedfailedtopayamountofdishonouredcheque within stipulated period. Hence, the complainant filed present 3..

..3.. SCCNO.164/2009 JUDGMENT complaint against the accused for the offence punishable under Section138oftheNegotiableInstrumentsAct.

04) betried.

MyLearnedPredecessorstatedparticularsoftheoffenceto

theaccusedatExh.23.Theaccusedpleadednotguiltyandclaimedto

05)

The points for determination alongwith my findings and

reasonsthereon,areasunder: POINTS (1)Whetherthecomplainantprovesthat thecheque,subjectmatterof thecase,wasissuedbytheaccused forthedischargeofthedebtorliability? (2)Whetherthecomplainantprovesthatthe accuseddishonouredthechequefor insufficiencyoffunds? FINDINGS.

.No.

.Yes.

(3)Whetherthecomplainantprovesthatheissued andservedthenoticetotheaccused demandingpaymentofdishonouredcheque? .Yes. (4)WhatOrder? .Theaccusedisacquitted. :REASONS: 06) Under said Act, being the special statute, there are the

specificpresumptionsinfavourofthecomplainant.Thepresumption isunderS.118oftheAct,thatunlessthecontraryisproved,every 4..

..4.. negotiableinstrumentwasmadeordrawnforconsiderationandthat every such instrument when it has been accepted, endorsed, negotiated, transferred was accepted, endorsed, negotiated, transferredforconsideration. AccordingtoS.139oftheAct,unless thecontraryisproved,itispresumedthattheholderofthecheque receiveditfordischargeofanydebtorotherlegalliability,eitherin wholeorinpart.Further,thereispresumptionunderS.146oftheAct thatinrespectofeveryproceeding,unlessthecontraryisproved,on productionofbank'sslipormemohavingthereontheofficialmark denotingthatthefactofdishonourofthecheque,itshallbepresumed tobedishonoured. ASTOPOINTNO.1: 07) To substantiate guilt of the accused, the complainant deposesatExh.33thatshe usestopurchaseseedsfromshopofthe accused for cultivation of agriculture property and due to said transactions, their relations became cordial as to even provide financialhelptoeachotherwheneverrequired.Shedeposesthatin January2003,theaccusedinneedofRs.7,00,000/andherequested hertogivefinancialhelpforwhichshecouldarrangeonwhichshe accumulatedamountofRs.5,00,000/fromsourceswithinherreach andgiventhatamounttotheaccused,butduetocordialrelations,she do not taken any writing from the accused for given amount. It is further deposed by her that when she asked for amount in March 2003, the accused given cheque bearing No.507459 (Exh.49) by puttingsignaturethereon. Accordingtothecomplainant,thecheque (Exh.49)wasissuedbytheaccusedfordischargeoflegaldebt.

5..

..5.. SCCNO.164/2009 JUDGMENT

08)

Ld. Advocate for the accused crossexamined the

complainantatlengthandraisedvariousdefences.Heraiseddefence thatcheque(Exh.49)doesnotbearsignatureoftheaccused.Inthis regard,itisnecessarytostatethattheaccusedwashavingopportunity toprovedefencebysendingchequeforit'sverificationbyexpert.But, the accused even do not taken any of the efforts atleast to move applicationforexpertopinion.Onthecontrary,comparingsignature on cheque (Exh.49) with signature on Vakalatnama (Exh.21), PersonalBond(Exh.27)beforePredecessorofthisCourtshowsthatit bearssignatureoftheaccused.Even,thereisnoreportbyconcerned bank that cheque (Exh.49) is dishonoured due to difference in signature on instrument and sample signature available on record. Hence,itiscrystalclearthatcheque(Exh.49)bearssignatureofthe accused.Therefore,atthefirst,Iwishtorelyon K.BhaskaranVs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balau and another (200(1) Mh.L.J.193, in ) whichtheirLordshipheldthat,
when signature on the cheque is admitted to be of the accused, presumption under S.118 of N.I.Act can legally be inferred that the cheque was drawn or made for consideration on the date when the cheque bears and S.139 of the Act enjoins on the Court to presume that the holder of the cheque received it for the discharge of any debt or liability. The burden is on the accused to rebut the said presumption.

09) Hence,inviewofaboveratio,itisclearthattheaccusedis

burdened to rebut presumption of S.139 of the Act. However, said burdencanbedischargedfrommaterialofcrossexaminationasitis 6..

..6.. heldinKrishnaJanardhanBhatVs.DattatrayaG.Hegde(2008All MR(Cri.)1164),theHon'bleSupremeCourtheldthat,

an accused for discharging the burden of proof placed on him under a statue need not examine himself. He may discharge his burden on basis of the materials already brought on records. Whereas prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts, the standard of proof so as to prove a defence on part of an accused is 'preponderance of probabilites'. Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the materials brought on records by the parties but also by reference to the circumstances upon which he relies. A statutory presumption has an evidentiary value. The question as to whether the presumption whether stood rebutted or not must, therefore, be determined keeping in view the other evidence on record. For the said purpose, steeping into the witness box by the accused is not imperative. In a case of this nature, where the chances of false implication cannot be ruled out, the background fact and the conduct of the parties together with their legal requirements are required to be taken into consideration.

Therefore, it becomes necessary to go through cross examinationofthecomplainantinbackdropofaboveratio.

10)

In course of crossexamination, it is suggested to the

complainant that there was a partnership business of Shree Hotel amongst her father and the accused at Nursinhwadi, in which the accusedwasgivenchequestoherfatherandshemisusedsameafter demiseoffather.Saidsuggestionsarecametobeflatlydeniedbythe complainant. But,realbrotherofthecomplainantviz.Aasmatpasha (CW3)clearlyadmittedaboutexistenceofsuchpartnershiphoteling businessamongsthisfatherandthatoftheaccused.Hence,according totheaccused,thecomplainantmisusedchequegivenbyhisbrother 7..

..7.. SCCNO.164/2009 JUDGMENT

to father of the complainant in partnership business. But, in this regard, it could not be overlooked that there is no suggestion of havingpartnershipbusinesswithbrotheroftheaccusedanditisonly withtheaccused.Hence,theaccusedhimselfisnotfirmondefenceas towithwhom,fatherofthecomplainantwasinpartnershipbusiness.

11)

Further,theaccusedalsoexaminedbankwitnessKeluskar

(AW1)whodeposesatExh.59thatAccountNo.1704belongstoAPP Associates and he produced Account Opening Form (Exh.60) and Account Extract (Exh.61) which shows that account No.1704 is of APPAssociates.However,fromAccountOpeningForm(Exh.60)and AccountExtract(Exh.61)orevenoraltestimonyofKeluskar(AW1),it couldnotbeascertainedthatfatherofthecomplainantisapartnerof APPAssociateswiththeaccusedorhisbrother.Furthermore,itcould notbeascertainedfromcheque(Exh.49)thatitisdrawnonbehalfof partnershipfirm.Intheresult,Ifindnosubstanceinargumentthat the complaint is not maintainable as not against the accused as partnerofthefirmandthatthecomplainantmisusedcheque(Exh.49) given to her father by the accused or his brother in partnership business.

12)

Ld.Advocatefortheaccusedsuggestedtothecomplainant

in crossexamination that she has no capacity to pay amount of Rs.5,00,000/totheaccused.Thecomplainantdeniedthesuggestion. She further admitted that she has not given that amount by withdrawingsamefromthebank.She stated that sheaccumulated 8..

..8..

thatamountfromothersourcesandalso,fromamountreceivedafter allottingthelandedpropertyonmortgage.Surprisingenough,thatthe complainant do not made any whisper either in the complaint or examinationinchiefaboutsourceofamountfrommortgagemoneyof landedproperty.Shefurtherstatedthatshegivenlandedpropertyon mortgagetooneMahaveerPomaje.

13)

Mahaveer(CW2)deposesatExh.43thatthecomplainant

handedoverhersharefromBlockNo.1804tohissisterinlawsviz. Vimalatai and Rekha for amount of Rs.2,50,000/ on mortgage, Whereas brother of the complainant Aasmatpasha handed over his share from Block No.1804 to sisterinlaws viz. Vimal and his wife Surekha for amount of Rs.2,50,000/ on mortgage. It is further deposedbyhimsaidpropertiesaremortgagedtohisfamilymembers ondtd.04/03/1999forperiodoftenyears.But,itissurprisingtonote that Aasmatpasha (CW3) do not averred a single word in his examinationinchiefaboutanysuchtransaction,thoughstatedabout it in course of crossexamination. Moreover, it is not case of the complainantthatshegivenamounttotheaccusedintheyear1999as toshowthatamountofmortgageisasourceofhandloangivenhim. Onthecontrary,shecamewithspecificcaseofhandingoveramount ofhandloaninJanuary,2003.

14)

Inaddition,Aasmatpasha(CW3)statedincourseofcross

examinationthatamountofRs.1,00,000/belongingtohim,amount ofRs.2,15,000/receivedfromMahaveerandremainingamountfrom thecomplainantherselfwasgiventotheaccused.Itisfurtherstated 9..

..9.. SCCNO.164/2009 JUDGMENT

bysaidwitnessthatthecomplainantaccumulatedsaidamountfrom above stated source alongwith Rs.50,000/ from aunt Bebijan Madiwale,amountofRs.50,000/fromoneShivajiPatilandamount ofRs.25,000/fromoneAjitDanole.Therefore,itiscrystalclearthat Aasmatpasha (CW3) contradicts evidence given by the complainant andMahaveer(CW2)inrelatingtosourceofhandloanamountgiven to the accused. Hence, in light of above evidence, suggestions on behalfoftheaccusedastowhetheritistruethatamountisgivento theaccusedatonestrokeandthattheamountisgivenonsamedayof stamp by the accused cannot be treated as fatum of admission of takingamountbytheaccused,butthosearethesuggestionsonlyto destructcaseofthecomplainantfordoubtingherfinancialcapacity.

15)

Incourseofcrossexamination,thecomplainantstatedthat

she has taken written stamp from the accused at time of giving amount.Shestatedherreadinesstoproducesocalledwrittenstamp in the Court. Though socalled written stamp available to the complainantasabestevidenceinproofofgivingloanamount,shedo notproducedsocalleddeedtilltoday.Hence,itcouldbeagroundto draw adverse inference against the complainant that she has not produced alleged stamp only because it would be evidencing that cheque(Exh.49)isnotissuedforanydebt.

16)

Here, I wish to rely on Nishith M.P. Verlekar V.

AqshpaqueMarfani(2009AllMR(Cri.)1001),inwhichitisheld bytheHon'bleLordshipthat, 10..

..10..
In order to ascertain as to whether the accused has discharged the burden cast on him under S.139 of N.I. Act, the probabilities of the case including the probability that the complainant was in a position to advance the large sums of money, has to be taken into consideration.

17)

Hence, in light of the above stated ratio and due to

improvedversionofthecomplainantalongwithcontradictoryevidence ofthewitnessesaboutsourceofhandloanamountandabsenceofthe witness to transaction; there is a room for doubt about financial capacity of the complainant for giving such huge amount towards hand loan and that too, without any written deed for security. In circumstances,thoughtheaccuseddonotgivenanypolicereportor intimation to bank to stop payment, it is probable that the complainantmighthavemisusedcheque(Exh.49).Forthereasons,it iscrystalclearthatthecomplainantfailedtodischargeinitialburden thatshewasinapositiontoadvanceatleastchequeamounttothe accusedbywayofhandloanattherelevanttime.

18)

Inviewofforegoingdiscussion,itiscrystalclearthatthe

complainant failed to discharge initial burden that he is paying capacityofallegedamount.Further,thereisnoevidencethatcheque (Exh.49) isissued onlytowardssatisfactionofanydebt.Therefore, presumptions under Section 138 and Section 139 of the Act are rebutted by material brought out in crossexamination. Resultantly, pointNo.1isansweredinthenegative. ASTOPOINTNO : .2 19) The complainant deposes that she deposited cheque 11.. (Exh.49)withK'wadUrbanBank,Br.Aalasforit'sencashment,butit

..11.. SCCNO.164/2009 JUDGMENT

got dishonoured with remark of 'Not Arranged For'. Bank communicated fact of dishonoured cheque (Exh.49) to the complainantbyReturnMemo(Exh.50)ondtd.18/06/2003.Cheque (Exh.49) comparing with return memo (Exh.50) shows that it is presentedtothebankforencashmentwithinstipulatedperiodofsix months,butreturnedunpaidwithremarkof'NotArrangedFor'.As per S.146 of the Act, Bank Return Memo (Exh.50) is primafacie evidenceofdishonourofcheque(Exh.49). ReturnMemo(Exh.50) with official endorsement 'Not Arranged For' clearly established factumofdishonourofcheque.Hence,pointNo.2isansweredinthe affirmative. ASTO POINTNO.3 : 20) Accordingtothecomplainant,shesentnotice(Exh.51)to

the accused on dtd.26/06/2006 for demanding amount of dishonouredcheque(Exh.49)anditreturnedbackwithendorsement 'Refused'.Hence,asperprovisionsofGeneralClausesAct,itisduly provedbythecomplainantthatdemandnotice(Exh.51)forpayment of dishonoured cheque (Exh.49) sent by her duly served to the accused.Hence,pointNo.3isansweredintheaffirmative.

ASTOPOINTNO.4: 21) Though,thecomplainantestablishedthatcheque(Exh.49) get dishonoured and demand notice (Exh.51) for payment of dishonoured cheque served to the accused, she failed to discharge initialburdenthatsheadvancedallegedamountbywayofloan.Inthe 12..

..12.. result,affirmativeconclusionaboutbouncingofcheque(Exh.49)and serviceofdemandnotice(Exh.51)isnothelpfultothecomplainantto prove guilt of the accused. The complainant failed to prove basic ingredient of the offence beyond shadow of doubt that cheque (Exh.49)isissuedfordischargeofdebt.Hence,theaccusedwillhave tobeacquitted.Intheresult,Ipassthefollowingorderinanswerto pointNo.4: :ORDER: (1) Theaccusedisacquittedoftheoffencepunishableunder Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act vide Sec. 255(1)oftheCodeofCriminalProcedure. Thebailbondsoftheaccusedstandscanceled.

(2)

Kurundwad. Date:31/07/2012.

(P.S.Shinde) JudicialMagistrateFirstClass, KURUNDWAD.

SummaryCriminalCaseNo.164/2009 :JUDGMENT: (Deliveredon31stJuly,2012)