2010 Supreme(MP) 217

2010 (3) JLJ 155
N.K. Mody, J.
Mahesh
V.
Ramakant
Criminal Revision No.1047 of 2009(I) :
Decided on : 9.3.2010.

Headnote:(1) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 -- Ss. 139 and 118( a) -- cheque alleged to be issued for repayment of loan – accused father had earlier issued notice to complainant regarding nond`returning of promissory note and rin-pustika despite full payment of loan advanced before alleged date of this loan transaction -- complainant had replied alleging transaction in context of sale of land -- advancing another loan without documents in such circumstances is surprising -- evidence not led about source of money advanced as loan -- complainant failed to prove that cheque was given by accused on account of legal liability -- conviction set aside.

       In EX.P-5 notice dated 2.11.2005 it is alleged that loan was given by respondent to petitioner before 6 months of issuance of notice and after settlement of account a cheque of Rs.1,15,997/- was issued by the petitioner in favour of respondent. The wife of respondent is the cousin sister of mother of the petitioner. Since it is alleged in the notice dated 22.11.2005 that loan was given before 6 months, therefore, approximate date of transaction is somewhere in the last week of May, 2005. EX.D-1 is the notice issued by father of the petitioner on 11.6.2004 to the respondent wherein it was alleged that father of the petitioner was in need of Rs.50,000/ and respondent agreed to lend a sum of Rs.50,000/- on 26.8.2003 on a consideration of interest @ 3% per month. It was alleged that for this purpose a promissory note was executed by the father of petitioner in favour of respondent. It was alleged in the notice that loan amount has already been paid but the promissory note and rin-pustika has not been returned by the respondent. It was alleged that blank stamp papers were also signed by father of the petitioner with a warning not to misuse the documents. This notice was replied by the respondent vide reply EX.D-2 wherein transaction of Rs.50,000/- was denied. It was alleged that no transaction has taken place between respondent and father of the petitioner. It was alleged that father of the petitioner agreed to sell a piece of agricultural land situated at Tahsil Sawer for a sum of Rs,400,000/ and a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- were advanced by respondent to father of the petitioner. It was alleged that father of petitioner wants to grab the money hence a false notice EX.D-1 dated 11.6.2004 has been issued by father of the petitioner. It was alleged that reply notice was further replied by father of the petitioner on 16.7.2004. It is surprising that in such circumstance a loan of Rs.1 ,15,997/can be given by the respondent to the petitioner that too without any document. Respondent has examined himself and .... He has further stated that for giving amount to the petitioner, respondent took a loan of Rs.25,000/- from the Society as respondent is having account in Cooperative Bank. Respondent also admitted that necessary entries are in the pass book but that document was not produced. Respondent has also stated that in the year 2004 petitioner was having the business of Dairy which was closed and at that time loan was given while in the statement it has been stated that transaction took place in the year 2005. In para 17 of cross-examination respondent has stated that while giving the second instalment of loan, at that time, loan was taken by the respondent from his brother who was not examined by the respondent for the best reasons known to him.

       Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that respondent has failed to prove that cheque was given by the petitioner to the respondent on account of legal liability. In view of this, judgment passed by learned Courts below cannot be allowed to sustain. AIR 1999 SC 1008 and 2008(1) NIJ 1 (SC) followed. [Paras 8 & 9

       (2) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 -- Ss.118(a) and 139 -presumption -- is rebut table -- defendant can prove non-existence of consideration by raising probable defence -- onus shifts to complainant who is obliged to prove it as a matter of fact. AIR 1999 SC 1008 followed. [Para 4

       ¼1½ ijdzkE; fy[kr vf/kfu;e] 1881 & /kkjk 139 rFkk 118¼d½ && pSd _.k ds izfrlank; ds fy, tkjh fd;k x;k vfHkdfFkr && vfHk;qDr ds firk us iwoZ esa ifjoknh dks bl _.k laO;ogkj ds vfHkdfFkr fnukad ds iwoZ fn, x, _.k ds iw.kZ lank; ds ckotwn opui= rFkk _.k&iqfLrdk u ykSVk, tkus ds laca/k esa lwpuk tkjh dh Fkh && ifjoknh us laO;ogkj dks Hkwfe ds fodz; ds laca/k esa vfHkdfFkr djrs gq, mRrj fn;k Fkk && ,slh ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa nLrkostksa ds fcuk vU; _.k nsuk vk‘p;Ztud gS && _.k ds :i esa fn, x, /ku ds L=ksr ds ckjs esa lk{; izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k && ifjoknh ;g lkfcr djus esa vlQy jgk fd vfHk;qDr }kjk pSd fof/kd nkf;Ro ds dkj.k fn;k x;k && nks"kflf) vikLrA

       izn‘kZ ih&5 lwpuk fnukad 22-11-2005 esa ;g vfHkdFku fd;k x;k fd izR;FkhZ }kjk ;kph dks lwpuk tkjh gksus ds 6 ekl iwoZ _.k fn;k x;k Fkk rFkk ys[kk ds ifjfu/kkZj.k ds i‘pkr ;kph }kjk :- 1]15]997@& dk pSd izR;FkhZ ds i{k esa tkjh fd;k x;k FkkA izR;FkhZ dh iRuh ;kph dh ek¡ dh ppsjh cgu gSA D;ksafd lwpuk fnukad 22-11-005 esa ;g vfHkdfFkr gS fd _.k 6 ekl iwoZ fn;k x;k Fkk] blfy,] laO;ogkj dk vuqekfur fnukad ebZ] 2005 ds vafre lIrkg esa dgha gSA izn‘kZ Mh&1 ;kph ds firk }kjk 11-6-2004 dks izR;FkhZ dks tkjh dh xbZ lwpuk gS ftlesa ;g vfHkdfFkr Fkk fd ;kph ds firk dks :- 50]000@& dh vko‘;drk Fkh rFkk izR;FkhZ 26-8-2003 dks 3% izfrekl C;kt dh nj ls :- 50]000@& dh jkf‘k dk _.k nsus ds fy, lger gqvkA ;g vfHkdFku fd;k x;k fd bl iz;kstu ds fy, ;kph ds firk }kjk izR;FkhZ ds i{k esa opui= dk fu"iknu fd;k x;kA lwpuk esa ;g vfHkdFku fd;k x;k fd _.k dh jde dk igys&gh lank; fd;k tk pqdk gS ijarq izR;FkhZ }kjkk opui= rFkk _.k&iqfLrdk okil ugha fd,A ;g vfHkdFku fd;k x;k fd ;kph ds firk }kjk fjDr LVkai i=ksa ij Hkh nLrkostksa dk nq:i;ksx u djus dh psrkouh ds lkFk gLrk{kj fd, x,A bl lwpuk dk izR;FkhZ }kjk mRrj izn‘kZ Mh&2 }kjk fn;k x;k ftlesa :- 50]000@& ds laO;ogkj ls bUdkj fd;k x;kA ;g vfHkdFku fd;k x;k fd izR;FkhZ rFkk ;kph ds firk ds e/; dksbZ laO;ogkj ugha gqvk gSA ;g vfHkdFku fd;k x;k x;k fd ;kph dk firk rglhy lkosj esa fLFkr d`f"k Hkwfe ds Hkkx dks :- 4]00]000@& esa fodz; djus ds fy, lger gqvk Fkk rFkk ;kph ds firk dks izR;FkhZ }kjk :- 3]00]000@& dh jkf‘k vfxze nh xbZ FkhA ;g vfHkdfFkr fd ;kph dk firk /ku gfFk;kuk pkgrk gS blfy, ;kph ds firk }kjk feF;k lwpuk izn‘kZ Mh&1 fnukad 11-6-2004 tkjh dh xbZ gSA ;g vfHkdfFkr fd blds vfrfjDr ;kph ds firk }kjk 16-7-2004 dks mRrj lwpuk dk vkSj vkxs mRrj fn;k x;kA ;g vk‘p;Ztud gS fd bl ifjfLFkfr esa ;kph dks izR;FkhZ }kjk :- 1]15]997@& dk _.k fn;k tk ldrk gS og Hkh fcuk fdlh nLrkost dsA izR;FkhZ us Lo;a dh ijh{kk dh gS rFkk ------- mlus vkxs dFku fd;k fd ;kph dks jde nsus ds fy,] izR;FkhZ us lkslkbZVh ls :- 25]000@& dk _.k fy;k ;Fkk izR;FkhZ dk lgdkjh cSad esa [kkrk gSA izR;FkhZ us ;g Hkh Lohdkj fd;k fd ikl&cqd esa vko‘;d izfof"V;k¡ gSa ijarq og nLrkost izLrqr ugha fd;k x;kA izR;FkhZ us ;g Hkh dFku fd;k fd o"kZ2004 esa ;kph dk nqX/k m|ksx dk dkjckj Fkk tks can gks x;k Fkk rFkk ml le; _.k fn;k x;k Fkk tcfd dFku esa ;g dfFkr fd;k x;k gS fd laO;ogkj o"kZ 2005 esa gqvkA izfr&ijh{k.k ds iSjk 17 esa izR;FkhZ us dFku fd;k fd _.k dks f}rh; fdLr nsrs le;] ml le;] izR;FkhZ }kjk mlds HkkbZ ls _.k fy;k x;k Fkk ftldh izR;FkhZ }kjk mls gh lokZf/kd Kkr dkj.kksa ls ijh{kk ugha dh xbZA

       ekeys ds lHkh rF;ksa rFkk ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks n`f"V esa j[krs gq,] bl U;k;ky; dh jk; gS fd izR;FkhZ ;g lkfcr djus esa vlQy jgk gS fd pSd ;kph ds firk }kjk izR;FkhZ dks fof/kd nkf;Ro ds dkj.k fn;k x;k FkkA bls n`f"Vxr j[krs gq,] fo)ku fupys U;k;ky;ksa }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ;ksa dks ekU; j[kus dh vuqKk ugha nh tk ldrhA , vkb vkj 1999 ,l lh 1008 rFkk 2008 ¼1½ ,u vkb ts 1 ¼,l lh½ vuqlfjrA

       ¼iSjk 8 ,oa 9½

       ¼2½ ijdzkE; fy[kr vf/kfu;e] 1881 && /kkjk 118¼d½ rFkk 139 && mi/kkj.k && [kaMuh; gS && izfroknh vf/klaHkkO; izfrj{kk djds izfrQy dk vufLrRo lkfcr dj ldrk gS && Hkkj ifjoknh ij LFkkukarfjr gksrk gS tks bls rF; ds ekeys ds :i esa lkfcr djus ds fy, ck/; gSA

       ¼iSjk 4½