Shrimati Ragini Gupta Vs. Piyush Dutt Sharma (Madhya Pradesh High Court)
In absence of satisfactory explanation it can be presumed that cheque was issued in discharge of the legally recoverable debt.
Conclusion –
Where the accused has failed to satisfactorily explain the circumstances under which the cheque was issued by the accused or misused by the complainant, then it can be safely inferred/ presumed that the cheque was issued in discharge of legally recoverable debt/liability.
Facts –
Respondent had filed complain against revisionist u/s 138 of NI, Act on the allegation that in the month of June, 2013, revisionist had obtained a loan of INR 10 Lakhs. Revisionist had given cheque dated 28.01.2014 which was deposited by the respondent on 03.02.2014, however, the same was dishonored since the bank account was blocked.
On the other hand, the revisionist submitted that no loan was taken from the respondent but in fact, the respondent and one Pankaj had stolen the cheque of the revisionist from the shop of her husband and accordingly, instructions were given to the Bank to block the account.
Revisionist also submitted that the respondent has never disclosed his source of income in the Income Tax Return and the respondent has never filed his Income Tax Return, therefore, it should be presumed that he did not have any source of income.
