I am for the complainant who out of a long lasting relationship gave hand loan to the accused. Case is decided against me on the grounds that [1] There is no eye witness to the transaction. [2] there is no account maintained by me [3] Cheque amount/ loaned amount Rs 2 Lakhs does not reflect in my income tax nor in the account books.
My argument is that [1] a person does not lend money to a friend dvertising it. I.E. he is discrete. [2] for hand loan why there should be maintaining account books [3] If i have not paid income tax on that amount , the matter is not the subject of dispute in this case. It has come in the evidence that I am a wealthy person, then in such circumstances the court ought not to have insisted on proof whether i really had that amount or not.
Accused lead evidence to show that a blank cheque was given to me towards another transaction and i falsely filled in the amount . However this contention of the accused is disbelieved by the Ld. Judge and he decided against me on the three grounds stated above .
I have preferred an appeal agst acquittal in the High Court which is pending admission. Can anybody give any judgment in my favour. Most of the judgments on hand loan are against me. REGARDS
dear rajan
admittedly any monetary transactions should be proved by documentary evidence either for criminal offence or for recover in civil suits. for cheating offence the hand loan may be taken up for consideration. but the commission of offence should be proved either by a eye witness, or an authoritative proof of accounts maintained towards the legally enforceable debt exclusively or that at the time of extending the loan you might have paid such income tax including the amount lent for loan. that may be prove that you may have such huge amount with you to lend the loan and you have the capacity. this may not be a dispute but it proves you ability to lend such amount. any transaction more than rs.100 should be maintained by accounts or other records. in the absence, it would be against you.
