In a cheque bounce case, the Chhattisgarh High Court has observed that since the loan amount was within the capacity of the complainant who was getting regular salary, judgments on source of income would not apply.
A bench of Justice Sharma passed the order in the case titled as Bulakiram Dewangan vs Rakesh Babu Shriwas on 25.06.2019.
Complainant and the respondent were class mates and neighbours and both are working as Shiksha Karmi Grade-II. In the month of June 2009, when the respondent/accused misused the fees of the students, he requested the appellant to help him in the peculiar circumstances of his service. Considering the critical position of the respondent, the appellant agreed to give him Rs.80,000/- on 25.6.2009 and on the same date the respondent orally promised to return the amount within three months. After the stipulated period, the amount was not returned but the respondent gave the appellant a cheque.
When the complainant filed a case as cheque was dishonoured, the Magistrate acquitted the accused. Complainant approached the High Court where the accused argued as "Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the appellant has not shown his source of income, therefore, it is not established that Rs.80,000/- was given by the appellant to the respondent". Accused also relied upon certain judgments.
High Court dealt with the judgments and observed "In the matter of K.Subramani (supra), the amount which was lend is Rs.14 lakh and in the matter of Rumi Hazarika (supra) the loan amount is Rs.5, 20,000/- and in the matter of Basalingappa (supra) the
amount of loan is Rs.8 lakh and the source of income was not satisfactory. In the present case, the complainant is working as
Shiksha Karmi Grade – II and he is getting regular salary and the amount of loan is Rs.80,000/- cannot said to be beyond the
source of the complainant, therefore, arguments advanced on behalf of the respondent and the case law cited on his behalf is distinguishable to the facts and circumstances of the present case".
High Court then convicted the accused observing "As per Section 139 of the Act, 1881, statutory presumption that the cheque issued for discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, the presumption is rebuttable but in the present case , the respondent did not appear before the trial Court to rebut the evidence adduced by the appellant. In the present case from the evidence of oral and documentary adduced by theappellant, it is proved that cheque amounting to Rs.80,000/- was issued in favour of the appellant and the same was dishonoured which is punishable under Section 138 of the Act, 1881 and the finding of the trial Court that the appellant has not established the source of income is contrary to the evidence adduced by the appellant".
Read the Order here:
Picture Source :
