MEENA RAJENDRA DEORE Vs. NARENDRA GAJANAN BANAIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Karnik appearing for the applicant in support of prayer for grant of leave to prefer an Appeal. The applicant is the complainant in two separate complaints filed under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments act, 1881. Both the complaints have resulted in acquittal.

(2.) Since facts of both the cases are more or less similar, I am referring to the facts of the case in Criminal Application No. 6256 of 2005. The case of the applicant is that a hand-loan of Rs. 50,000/- was advanced by him to the first respondent. The first respondent was to repay the amount on or before 1st March, 1999. A cheque was issued for discharge of the said liability by the first respondent which was dishonoured on the basis of which the complaint has been filed.

(3.) Shri Karnik appearing for the applicant submitted that the learned trial judge has completely ignored the statutory presumption under section 139 of the negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and has put entire burden on the applicant. He contended that the applicant was under no obligation to prove the existence of liability on the part of the first respondent. He submitted that the effect of execution of a demand promissory note by the first respondent is not at all considered by the trial Court.