- (1.) Present petition is filed by the accused assailing order dated 7.3.2011 passed by Sessions Judge, Jalandhar.
(2.) Brief facts of the present case are that Respondent/complainant has filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the Petitioner contending that accused has taken a friendly loan to the tune of Rs. 1,60,000/- for his personal needs with a promise to repay the same within a short period. In order to discharge his legal liability, accused had issued three cheques bearing No. 052430 dated 19.7.2005 of an amount of Rs. 50,000/- drawn on Union Bank of India, Chogati, Jalandhar, cheque No. 089628 dated 23.7.2005 of Rs. 50,000/-drawn on Union Bank of India, Chogati, Jalandhar and a cheque No. 242900 dated 22.7.2005 of Rs. 60,000/- drawn on State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur. It is further contended that accused has assured that at the time of presentation of cheques, same shall be honoured. It has further been contended that on presentation, cheques were dishonored; thereafter statutory notice was issued and even after receiving of the statutory notice accused failed to make payment of loan amount. Before the trial Court, accused/Petitioner has asserted that he has not taken any loan rather, in fact, complainant has invested some money in the business/chit fund of the father of the accused and complainant has taken blank cheques as security of the amount invested by the accused in the business of chit fund of the father of the accused. It is further contended by the accused that complainant has filled up the blank cheques without consent, knowledge and intimation to the accused.
(3.) Learned trial Court has rejected the complaint having observed In this case the accused has taken the defence that the complainant has invested his money for the business/Chit Fund of his father and he took his blank signed cheques as security and the complainant has misused the same and the perusal of the FIR No. 67 Ex.DX shows that the accused has a business of disbursing loan on daily collection basis/Chit Fund transaction between him and the complainant. Thus there was a business transaction between him and the complainant and the accused's version is that nothing was due to the complainant towards him and complainant misused the blank cheque given as security and the complainant himself has admitted that the accused has given the blank cheque as security. Thus the accused has been able to discharge the onus placed on him. In case titled as M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani v. State of Kerala,2006 3 RecCriR 504, it is held that if the defence is acceptable as probable the cheque therefore cannot be held to have been issued in discharge of debt, as for example if a cheque is issued for security or for any other purpose the same would not come within the purview of Section 138 of the Act and it is also well established that where the burden of an issue lies upon the accused, he is not required to discharge that burden by leading evidence to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt and the accused in the present case has been able to discharge the onus placed on him. So the accused Iqbal Singh is acquitted of the charge leveled against him. File be consigned to record room.;