I am guru murthy, My mother Smt.K. Jaya Lakshmi aged 64 years who is participated in various chits with Adi Laxmi and the matured chit amounts has been give as a hand loan to G. Adi laxmi which accumulated an amount of Rs.2531600/-. For which we have taken promissory note for Rs.2531600/- and cheque for an amount of Rs.25 lakhs. so later she refused to return back the amount. Accordingly the cheque has been deposited in the bank and the cheque has been returned with Account closed. So we have gone to the 1st advocate and issued notice that my client has issued an amount of Rs.2531600/- to your client has a hand loan from time to time. G. Adi laxmi (Accused) has replied to the notice that she lost her signed promissory note and cheque and it was unbelievable to take such a huge amount as a hand loan. Then we have changed the advocate and issued rejoinder notice stating that your client used to run chits accordingly my client participated in various chits keeping in past accquitance my client handed over the amount as a hand loan from time to time. We have produced sufficient income proof and unsigned chit books which were written by accused own writting. My mother, I and my brother stood as Pw1, 2 & 3. She even didnt came to witness box. In 313 she stated that she lost promissory note and cheque, she even didnt given police complaint when the cheque and promissory note are stolen.The district court judge dismissed the case as there is difference in the plea in complainent .
The promissory note comes under legal liability or not.
Amount of Rs. 25 Lacs cannot be extended as friendly loan, if so there must be clear and legally admissible proof of the same. Presence of cheque and promissory not is not the conclusive proof of liability. Moreover in your case there certainly was some change in plea, which can be described as afterthought, and matter ends.
Advocate Madras High Court & Legal Consultant Chennai Law in Law Firm. +91-9698884779
Though you had a good and strong case, the contradict statements projected by your side made the same as weak.
However, if the execution of the cheque is not denied, it could be presumed under Section 118 (a) and Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that the instrument was made or drawn for consideration.
No doubt, it is the duty of defence to prove that the cheque was not issued towards discharge of a lawful debt.
In "The Negotiable Instrument Act" there is no presumption with respect to the truthfulness of prosecution case, neither there is any presumption with respect to the amount. The presumption is very simple : That the cheque is issued for the purpose of clearing some liability. Prosecution has to prove the facts behind this liability. If prosecution fails to establish its case or fails to provide evidence for existence of liability with respect to amount then accused cannot be convicted.