RANGARAJU Vs. DHANRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant -complainant and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent -accused.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant, during the course of the arguments, submitted that issuance of cheque to the appellant and signature on the cheque is not disputed by the respondent -accused, on the contrary, it is an admitted fact. But the only contention that was raised by the accused was that cheque was given to Ramesh Kumar, who is said to be the friend of complainant, and not to the complainant directly. The learned Counsel submitted that when issuance of the cheque and signature on it is admitted, initial presumption is in favour of the complainant regarding passing of consideration and existence of legally recoverable debt and it is for the accused to rebut the presumption. He submitted that the trial court, in spite of such material placed before it, only on the ground that there was some correction with regard to the year in Ex.P.1 -cheque that the figure '2' had been corrected firstly as '3' and subsequently as '5', held that the complainant has to explain about the material alteration in the instrument. The learned counsel further submitted that the appellant -complainant, in the cross examination, has deposed that he had not done such correction and it was done by the accused himself. The accused neither lead evidence nor examined any witness to rebut the presumption in favour of the complainant. With regard to correction in the instrument Ex.P.1 -cheque, there is signature of the accused. Therefore, question of the complainant explaining about such correction does to arise. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that when the notice was issued, same was not claimed by the respondent -accused. The trial court, without appreciating the materials on record, wrongly acquitted the respondent -accused and dismissed the complaint of the appellant -complainant.

(3.) PER contra, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent -accused, during the course of the arguments, made submission that regarding correction in Ex.P.1 - cheque, it is the complainant who has to explain because the instrument has been produced by the appellantcomplainant himself before the court. The learned counsel submitted that even according to the case of the complainant, he was serving as Head Constable drawing salary of Rs.7,000/ - p.m. and he has to explain regarding his financial capacity to pay Rs.2.00 lakh at a time. The appellant -complainant has not specifically mentioned as to when exactly the above transaction took place and on which particular day the amount was paid to the respondent -accused. Hence, the learned counsel submitted that the trial court has properly appreciated these facts and no illegality has been committed by the trial court in passing the impugned order when the material alteration in the instrument itself disentitles the appellant -complainant to make any claim against the respondent -accused. Therefore, submitted that no case is made out in the present appeal and the same may be dismissed.