Exclusive HOLI Discounts!
Get Courses and Combos at Upto 50% OFF!
Upgrad
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Ranjita Narayan   31 August 2019

138 ni act

dear sir

I had to taken a loan of 6 lakhs over a period of time from a friend through rtgs in 2016. he insisted for a cheque blank and I obliged . I returned the money in 4 installments within 6 months through rtgs .. when I asked for the cheque he told he will return it once he is back as he was working in another state . over a period of time I forgot about the cheque. last year some unknown person deposited the said cheque for an amount of 3 lakhs and it was returned as there was no funds . he sent a notice for the recovery saying he has paid me 3 lakhs by cash in June 2018 so I have given him a cheque . I replied for that notice as to I don't know the person. the court has summoned me now . after some verification I came to know that the person who has filed the case is brother in law if my friend whom I had given the cheque. please advice me as I have been given a date on 7th Sept 2019 to appear .


Learning

 14 Replies

Ranjita Narayan   31 August 2019

what are my chances of me being aquitted is my query..request to kindly reply

Gaurav Deep Goel   31 August 2019

The case is quite good. you through your counsel can extract truth from him.
1 Like

rajesh r   01 September 2019

it was given to the complainant by my friend whom I had already paid ...just to harass me .

Ranjita Narayan   01 September 2019

but sir that is the fact . I have never met nor have had any contact with the complainant.

Ranjita Narayan   01 September 2019

he says he has paid 3 lakhs in cash last year

Akshit Navaney   04 September 2019

Dont worry it is very much possible to prove 

 

1 Like

Akshit Navaney   04 September 2019

It is possible to prove the point you are relying upon 

do get in touch 9999276662

advaksh*tnavaney@gmail.com

1 Like

Dr. MPS RAMANI Ph.D.[Tech.] (Scientist/Engineer)     06 September 2019

On the date of first hearing you will have to apply for bail. It may be a cash surety or surety of a person. Be prepared for that. There is a dictum "truth is only one whereas falsehood would be varied and many for the same episode. You carefully read the lawyer's notice that you received and the court summons. If true the narration of the case would be same on both because truth is only one. If it is fabricated story, you are sure to find some discrepancies and variations. You can expose them through cross-examination of complainant and the so called friend to whom you had originally given the cheque. Rupees three lakhs is too large an amount to be given in cash. Payment of any amount more than Rs.20000/- in banned under the income-tax act. You can ask the compalainant about the source of such large amount and bank transactions to prove that. You allege that it was unaccounted cash. There are court judgments that section 138 will not apply for unaccounted cash.

You file a police case against your so called friend and the complainant for cheating and criminal  conspiracy. There is a lot of problem for you. But if the case is properly argued there is nothing to worry.

1 Like

Dr. MPS RAMANI Ph.D.[Tech.] (Scientist/Engineer)     07 September 2019

By defaulter do you mean Ms Ranjita Narayan? Yes Income tax laws will apply to her also. But she has not stated that she paid any amount to any body by cash. Whatever payment which she had made, she says,  was by online transfer. It is the complainant who claims that he paid cash of Rs.3 lakhs. Further what I had stated was a judgment and not necessarily my own views.

2 Like

Dr. MPS RAMANI Ph.D.[Tech.] (Scientist/Engineer)     07 September 2019

By defaulter do you mean Ms Ranjita Narayan? Yes Income tax laws will apply to her also. But she has not stated that she paid any amount to any body by cash. Whatever payment which she had made, she says,  was by online transfer. It is the complainant who claims that he paid cash of Rs.3 lakhs. Further what I had stated was a judgment and not necessarily my own views.

Ranjita Narayan   07 September 2019

dear sir

I attented the court today. bail was granted and plea was recorded. it is adjourned to 19 of oct . for the complainant to file his evidence

Ranjita Narayan   07 September 2019

om prakash sir. what ever i have told here is the truth.

Ranjita Narayan   07 September 2019

thank you sir. but in my case I have had online financial transactions with my friend and not the complainant. I have never ever spoken to him nor met him . in his notice he said he met me one day and I asked him a loan of three lakhs and he gave me the amount in cash and I gave him a cheque. that's a
his version

Dr. MPS RAMANI Ph.D.[Tech.] (Scientist/Engineer)     08 September 2019




I am not a lawyer and I cannot represent anyone in a court of law. But I have successfully helped people who have defended themselves in similar cases. Under Section 139 there is a presumption that the cheque had been issued in discharge of a liability and, if otherwise, the burden of proof is on the accused. The requisites of Section 139 are (1) there should be a cheque issued in favour of the complainant.(2) once there is a valid cheque it is issued in discharge of a liability. Please remember Section 139 is the reverse of normal presumption under the law of natural justice that a person is not guilty until proven otherwise. This also weighs in favour of the accused. Point (1) of Section 139 is satisfied because there exists a cheque.  You have to rebut point No.2. The first question here would be “Why you issued the cheque?”  You have given a valid reply here. In order to further prove your point you can cross-examine the so called friend. Your transactions with the so called friend through RTGS and their dates would be further evidence. If your so called friend is really your friend no further evidence would be necessary. If you had issued other cheques from the same cheque book before and after that will be basis for the approximate date of the cheque. Nowadays cheques are valid only for 3 months. If the cheque was presented beyond  d the 3 months that would be further. If it is so, you can also show sufficient bank balance on the date the alleged loan was taken. It is not at all difficult to rebut Section 139.


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register