Kerala High Court while upholding a conviction in cheque bounce case has observed that the very fact that the accused did not send any reply to the statutory notice leads to the inference that the case of the complainant is true.
A bench of Justice Pisharadi has passed the order in the case titled as M.Valsan @ Wilson vs State Of Kerala decided on 02.03.2020.
The case of the complainant: The complainant and the accused were known to each other. The accused had borrowed money from the complainant on various dates. A total amount of Rs.20,00,000/- was due from the accused to the complainant. In discharge of that liability, the accused executed and issued a cheque dated 04.04.2012 for Rs.20,00,000/- to the complainant. The complainant presented the cheque in the bank. It was returned unpaid for the reason that there was no sufficient amount in the account of the accused. The complainant sent a lawyer notice to the accused demanding payment of the amount of the cheque. The notice was served on the accused. He did not send any Crl.Rev.Pet.No.244 OF 2020 reply. The accused did not pay the amount of the cheque.
The plea raised by the accused is that he had borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the husband of the accused and at that time, he had given a signed blank cheque as security and that the complainant has misused the aforesaid cheque and filed the case.
High Court observed and held as under:
"There is primarily the evidence of the complainant to explain the circumstances under which she came into possession of the cheque, admittedly drawn on a cheque leaf issued to the accused by his bank to operate his account. No contra evidence has been adduced. On broad probabilities, there is no reason to doubt or suspect the statement on oath of the complainant. The fact that the accused has no reasonable and probable explanation as to how the cheque travelled from his possession to that of the complainant is certainly a crucial aspect while considering the acceptability of the evidence of the complainant.
It is also pertinent here to note that the accused has no case that he did not receive the statutory notice sent to him by the complainant. In fact, Ext.P5 document issued from the postal department shows that the notice was served on the accused. The accused did not send any reply to the statutory notice. If he had not obtained an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- from the complainant and if he had not executed and issued Ext.P1 cheque to the complainant in Crl.Rev.Pet.No.244 OF 2020 discharge of that liability, he would have definitely sent a reply to the notice. If he really did not owe the amount to the complainant, he would not have remained silent and inactive on receiving a lawyer notice from the complainant demanding an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- from him and threatening legal action on default being committed by him in payment of the amount. The very fact that the accused did not send any reply to the statutory notice leads to the inference that the case of the complainant is true".
Read the Order here:
