IN THE COURT OF MS [ENTITY]: METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-04/ NI ACT/ SOUTH SAKET DISTRICT COURTS/ DELHI CT No. 469467/16 KAMLESH V. [ENTITY] JUDGMENT
(a) Name of complainant : [ENTITY] W/O SH. [ENTITY], R/O HOUSE NO. 1100/14, GALI NO. 25, BLOCK-L-1ST, [ENTITY], NEW DELHI-110062 (b) Name, parentage and : MR. [ENTITY], address of accused. S/O LATE SH. [ENTITY] R/O HOUSE NO. 632, GALI NO. 19/6 BLOCK- K, RATIA MARG, [ENTITY], NEW DELHI- 110062. (c) Offence complained of/ proved: U/[SECTION] OF THE [ACT] (d) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty and submitted that the cheque in question was given to the complainant in a blank signed condition by way of security for a loan of Rs. 50,000/- that was advanced to him in the year 2006 and is repaid. (e) Final order : ACQUITTED Date of institution : 16.05.2013 Arguments heard/order reserved : 20.08.2019 Date of Judgment : 27.08.2019 JUDGMENT BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS:
1. Succinctly, it is the case of the complainant that on16.05.11, on account of friendly relation of the accused with the complainant and her husband, the complainant advanced a sum of Rs.2,20,000 to the accused as he required it for some urgent work and the accused promised to repay the said amount @18% per annum on or before 23.03.13. In order to discharge the liability of the above stated loan, the accused issued a receipt dated 16.05.11 along with a cheque bearing no.496021 dated 23.03.13 for a sum of Kamlesh v. [ENTITY] CT No. 469467/16 2 of 21 Rs. 2,20,000/-, drawn on his bank account maintained with Central Bank of India(hereinafter referred to as the cheque in question) in favour of the complainant. The said cheque in question was returned unpaid due to "account closed" vide memo dated 28.03.13.
2. After the above-mentioned dishonour, the complainant issued a legal demand notice dated 10.04.13, duly addressed to the accused. Since the accused failed to pay the amount due against the cheque in question within the statutory period, hence, the present complaint under [SECTION] of [ACT] (hereinafter referred to as [ACT]).
3. Upon service of summons, the accused entered an appearance. Thereafter, vide order dated 03.08.13, notice u/[SECTION] [ACT] was served upon the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty. In his plea of defence, the accused submitted that in the year 2006, he borrowed a sum of Rs. 50,000/- @ 5% interest per month from the complainant and gave the cheque in question in a blank signed condition along with two other cheques, by way of security to the complainant. He further submitted that he has already repaid the said amount along with interest but the complainant did not return the cheques on the pretext that she had lost them and later misused these cheques to file the present complaint. He deposed that he did not take any legal action against the lost cheques on account of the friendly relations that he had with the complainant. Thereafter, accused was allowed to cross examine the complainant u/[SECTION] of [ACT]. After cross examination of the complainant and her witnesses, the matter was fixed for recording of statement of the accused u/[SECTION] of [ACT]. In the said statement recorded on 20.07.17, the accused submitted that he knew the complainant but he never took any loan from the complainant at any point of time. He rather deposed that in the year 2006, he took a loan of Rs. 50,000/- from the husband of the complainant at 5% interest per month and had repaid the said amount in 2006-07 by way of cash in instalments. It is the version of the accused that the final payment towards the amount of Rs. 50,000/- was returned to the husband of the complainant in presence of one [ENTITY] but he does not have receipt wrt to the amount repaid. He thereafter submitted that after making the payment, he demanded his security cheque back but the husband of the complainant kept on delaying on one pretext or another and did not return the cheque in question. He also admitted that the cheque in question bears his signature but denied having filled the contents and even denied the signatures on the receipt which is alleged to be executed by him in favour of the complainant. Matter was thereafter fixed for leading defence evidence. Defence evidence was closed on 26.03.19 and the matter was fixed for addressing final arguments.
EVIDENCE:
4. In order to support his case, the complainant stepped into the witness box as CW-1 and rendered his affidavit Ex CW-1/1 into evidence where averments made in the complaint were reiterated. He also relied upon various documents such as Ex CW-1/A which is the receipt, Ex CW-1/B which is the cheque in question, Ex CW-1/C which is the cheque return memo, Ex CW-1/D which is the legal demand notice, Ex CW-1/E to CW-1/H are the postal receipts, Ex CW-1/I which is the returned legal notice sent through RC, Ex CW-1/K TO Ex CW-1/N are the tracking reports. The complainant got two other witnesses examined i.e CW-2,Guruvesh Kumar, one of the witness to Ex CW-1/A and CW-3, [ENTITY], the second witness to the receipt Ex CW-1/A.
5. Accused on the other hand got five witnesses examined. DW-1 was [ENTITY], in whose presence the accused alleges to have paid the husband of the complainant the last instalment towards the sum of Rs. 50,000/-, DW-2 was [ENTITY], Asst. Manager, Central Bank of India, G.K-II, DW-3 was [ENTITY], officer from Punjab National Bank, Devli Road, Khanapur, DW-4 was the accused himself, DW-5 was Head Const. [ENTITY], MHCR Record Mohrahir, PS Sangam Vihar and DW-6 was [ENTITY], [ENTITY], Record Clerk, Record Room (Criminal), South,Saket. He also relied on documents DW-1/1 and DW-1/2i.e the complaint written by the accused to the SHO Sangam Vihar PS and to the Dy. Commissioner of Police, South, respectively, regarding the forging of signature of the accused by the complainant,DW-3/A which is the statement of a/c of the accused from 01.04.06-31.03.10, DW-5/A and DW-5/B i.e the order of the Dy. Commissioner of police whereby the records containing in the register no.B, C grade CMTS Complaint were destroyed till 31.12.14 and original register no. B of the year 2013 having entry of DD no. 73b dated 14.08.13, respectively and EX DW-6/A which is the copy of judgement in the case titled as Kamlesh vs [ENTITY], dated 26.02.16.
6. I have heard the arguments and also gone through the record carefully.
THE LAW APPLICABLE:
7. The law regarding the ingredients of the offence punishable u/[SECTION] [ACT] is well settled. It was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of '[PRECEDENT], that "offence under [SECTION] [ACT], can be completed only with the concatenation of a number of facts, namely, Drawing of the cheque;
Presentation of the cheque to the bank;
Returning the cheque unpaid by the drawer bank;
Giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque demanding payment of the cheque amount;
Failure of the drawer to make payment within 15 days if the receipt of the notice".
8. The object of the statute is to facilitate smooth functioning of business transactions. The provision is necessary as in many transactions cheques are issued merely as a device to defraud the creditors. Dishonour of cheque causes incalculable loss, injury and inconvenience to the payee and credibility of business transactions suffers a setback. Offence under [SECTION] of the Act is primarily a civil wrong. Burden of proof is on accused in view of the presumption under [SECTION] which says that, "It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque, of the nature referred to in [SECTION] for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability." but the standard of such proof is "preponderance of probabilities". Also,in a significant departure from the general rule applicable to contracts, [SECTION] of the Act provides certain presumptions to be raised. This section lays down some special rules of evidence relating to presumptions. The reason for these presumptions is that, negotiable instrument passes from hand to hand on endorsement and it would make trading very difficult and negotiability of the instrument impossible, unless certain presumptions are made. The presumption, therefore, is a matter of principle to facilitate negotiability as well as trade.
9. [SECTION] of the Act, inter alia, directs that it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration. [SECTION] of the Act stipulates that unless the contrary is proved, it shall be presumed, that the holder of the cheque received the cheque, for the discharge of whole or part of any debt or liability. Applying the definition of the word "proved" in [SECTION] of the [ACT] to the provisions of [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the Act, it becomes evident that in a trial under [SECTION] of the Act a presumption will have to be made that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration and that it was executed for discharge of debt or liability once the execution of negotiable instrument is either proved or admitted. As soon as the complainant discharges the burden to prove that the instrument, the rules of presumptions under [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the Act helps him shift the burden on the accused. The presumptions will live, exist and survive and shall end only when the contrary is proved by the accused, that is, the cheque was not issued for consideration and in discharge of any debt or liability. A presumption is not in itself evidence, but only makes a prima facie case for a party for whose benefit it exists.
ARGUMENTS AND APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE:
10. It has been vociferously argued by the counsel for the complainant, that since the issuance of, and signature on the cheque in question, have not been disputed by the accused, the presumption under [SECTION] read with [SECTION] of the [ACT], arises in favour of the complainant and the accused has failed to rebut the said presumption. He further argued that though the application of the accused to get his signatures on EX CW-1/A examined by the FSL was dismissed, but he was given liberty vide that order to get the signatures examined by a private expert at his expense at the stage of defence evidence, but the same was not done and therefore he cannot dispute his signatures on EX CW-1/A.
11. Per contra, it has been argued by the counsel for the accused that the cheque in question was only given by way of security to the husband of the complainant for the amount that the accused had borrowed from the husband of the complainant and the same was repaid in presence of one [ENTITY]. He further submitted that in the legal demand notice, it is nowhere mentioned that what is the exact amount that has to be paid and that both the legal notice and the complaint do not allude to the execution of EX CW-1/A. He also argued that the signatures of the accused were either forged by the complainant or the husband of the complainant and he had also filed a complaint w.r.t the same at PS Sangam Vihar. Furthermore, he argued that it was the duty of the complainant to call an expert and get the signatures verified as it was her document. He further submitted that the complainant is stranger to the accused and he also questioned the financial capacity of the complainant to advance such a huge sum and to support this EX DW-6/A is placed in record. As per this document, another case was filed by the complainant against one [ENTITY], wherein the complainant had advanced a loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- on or before 23.03.13 to [ENTITY] in cash and the said case was dismissed as the complainant could not prove her case. The counsel for the accused also submitted that the cheque in question belongs to a series of cheques which were of the year 2006 and that the complainant in connivance with her husband has misused the said cheque in question that was given to her husband in the year 2006. Thereafter, he submitted that in the notice u/[SECTION], the accused meant the husband of the complainant and inadvertently he said that it was the complainant from whom he had taken the loan of Rs.50,000/- in 2006. In order to support his case, the counsel for the accused has relied on the following judgments:
[PRECEDENT] [PRECEDENT] Saj Properties Pvt Ltd. Vs [ENTITY]Dagar [ 2015 (2) JCC NI 150] [PRECEDENT] [PRECEDENT]
12. At the outset, before analyzing the evidence of the complainant and his witnesses vis-a-vis the evidence adduced on behalf of the accused, it would be necessary to set down few facts which are no more in dispute:
a. The Cheque (EX CW-1/B) dated 23.03.2013 was issued from the account of the accused with his Banker.
b. The Cheque (EX CW-1/B) bears the signature of the Accused.
It is trite that once the signatures are admitted by the accused, a presumption is raised under [SECTION] read with [SECTION] [ACT] having been drawn for good consideration and in discharge of legal liability. The presumption is a mandatory presumption; however, the accused is entitled to rebut the presumption by a preponderance of probabilities. In this backdrop, let us begin to examine whether the accused has been able to rebut the presumption drawn against him on the scale of preponderance of probabilities. Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn even by reference to circumstances.
13. First, the complainant was cross examined as CW-1 at length. She admitted that she knew the accused through her husband from past 15- 16 years. CW-1 further deposed that she used to work as a tailor and was saving around Rs. 5000-6000/- in cash. She submitted that she used to hand over this amount to her mother and brother for safe custody and later, when the accused required money, she advanced the loan out of these savings and because she knew the accused from a long time and he was financially sound, she did not hesitate in advancing the loan of Rs. 2,20,000/-. She Kamlesh v. [ENTITY] CT No. 469467/16 10 of 21 further submitted that EX CW-1/A was executed at the time of advancing the loan and the same was written by her husband at the request of the accused and the said receipt was signed and handed over to her by the accused in presence of two witnesses. Moreover, she submitted that the cheque in question was filled by her husband at the request of the accused and thereafter the accused had signed the cheque. CW-1 submitted that she knew that the accused had sold his house, but according to her the same was done before he took the loan from her and also he did not pay any amount to her husband out of the proceeds from the sale of the house.
14. Next, CW-2 was examined. He corroborated the version of CW-1 and submitted that the loan was given to the accused in his presence. Though, according to CW-2, the accused was carrying the cheque in question in a blank signed condition and thereafter it was filled by the husband of the complainant.
15. The third witness on behalf of the complainant was her husband, CW-3. He submitted in his cross examination that the cheque and EX CW-1/A was written by him at the request of the accused and then it was duly signed by the accused. He admitted, that earlier accused used to borrow small amount of money from him but the present loan in question was advanced by his wife and also that the accused never approached his wife i.e the complainant, to advance the loan, rather he approached him and it was at his Kamlesh v. [ENTITY] CT No. 469467/16 11 of 21 request that the complainant advanced the sum of Rs. 2,20,000/- to the accused. He also submitted that CW-2 was his nephew.
16. Now, initially, the defence taken by the accused in the notice framed u/[SECTION] [ACT] was that he took a loan of Rs. 50,000/- @ interest of 5% per month from the complainant in 2006 and he gave three blank signed cheques including the cheque in question by way of security, as demanded by the complainant. He submitted that he had already paid the entire amount but his security cheques were not returned as the complainant claimed to have lost them and because both the parties knew each other from a long time and were neighbours, therefore the he did not take any legal action. He later, in his examination under [SECTION] [ACT], modified the defence taken under [SECTION] [ACT]. In his statement u/[SECTION] [ACT], the accused submitted that he knew the complainant but he never took any loan from her ,rather he took a loan of Rs. 50,000/- @ 5% interest in the year 2006, from the husband of the complainant and had repaid the entire amount in cash. According to the accused, the final payment was made in front of one [ENTITY] and that the cheque in question was given to the husband of the complainant in a blank signed condition and that the husband of the complainant refused to return the cheque in question on one pretext or other and later, misused this cheque in connivance with the complainant to file the present complaint.
Kamlesh v. [ENTITY] CT No. 469467/16 12 of 21
17. The accused brought one [ENTITY] as DW-1. DW-1 submitted that in the year 2008, the accused sold his house and the proceeds of the sale were received at his house in the presence of husband of the complainant. He further submitted that the husband of the complainant took a sum of Rs. 20,000/- from the accused out of the amount that he received from the sale of his house and that the husband of the complainant mentioned at the time of taking the amount that no other amount is due by the accused to him and that he shall return the cheque which belonged to the accused in near future.
18. Thereafter, DW-2 and DW-3 were examined who were the bank witnesses. DW-2 placed on record DW-2/1, i.e the account statement of the accused from the period of 01.04.06 - 31.03.10. DW-2 submitted in his cross examination that the cheque in question must have been issued in 2006 as the first cheque in the series of '496' was presented on 09.08.06 and the cheque bearing no. '496022' was presented on 15.11.06. Moreover, he submitted that the said account is inoperative since June 2009. DW-3 brought EX DW-3/A i.e the statement of account of the complainant from the period 01.04.10 - 31.03.12.
19. Next, accused examined himself as DW-4 in his defence. He was duly cross examined. DW-4 reiterated the submission made by him in his statement u/[SECTION] of [ACT]. Though, at this stage he also mentioned that the cheque in question along with the other two security cheques were not Kamlesh v. [ENTITY] CT No. 469467/16 13 of 21 returned by the husband of the complainant on the ground that the same were misplaced at his house. He also submitted that his signatures on EX CW-1/A are forged and the same was forged by the complainant along with her husband and her nephew to misuse the cheque in question. DW-1 further deposed that on account of this forgery, on 14.08.13, he wrote a complaint to the SHO Sangam Vihar and the Dy. Commissioner of police, south and he has placed on record the original receipt of the same. He also alleged that the husband of the complainant is in the business of money lending and because he is a government employee, therefore the cases are filed by his wife. DW-4 further clarified that inadvertently, it is mentioned in the notice u/[SECTION] [ACT] that the loan was taken from the complainant when actually it was taken from the husband of the complainant.
20. Then, DW-5 was examined. He placed on record DW-5/A and DW- 5/B. Perusal of both these documents show that a complaint was written by the accused to the SHO.
21. Lastly, DW-6 was examined. He was summoned to get the copy of a judgment titled Kamlesh vs [ENTITY]. The said document is placed on record and is DW-6/A.
22. Now, it is the case of the complainant that she had given a friendly loan of Rs. 2,20,000/- to the accused and that the accused issued the cheque in question to return the said loan. The same is even corroborated by Kamlesh v. [ENTITY] CT No. 469467/16 14 of 21 CW-2 AND CW-3, however there are few contradiction in the case of the complainant. First, that the cheque in question was filled by her husband and thereafter signed by the accused, but according to CW-2 and CW-3, the cheque in question was blank and signed by the accused which was thereafter filled by the husband of the complainant at the request of the accused. The other interesting contradiction is that according to CW-3, the accused approached him for the loan and it was at his request that his wife advanced the loan however, as per the complainant, the accused had been approaching her for month to advance the loan.
23. On the other hand, the contradiction in the stand taken by the accused was, that initially, in the notice framed u/[SECTION] [ACT], the accused submitted that he took the loan of Rs. 50,000/- from the complainant which he had already repaid in 2008. Later, at the stage of recording the statement of the accused u/[SECTION] of [ACT], he submitted that he took the loan from the husband of the complainant i.e CW-3 and not from the complainant. Now, as per the counsel for the accused, the accused wanted to say husband of the complainant at the time of framing of the notice but inadvertently said complainant.
24. From the oral evidence of the complainant and the documents on record it transpires that an amount of Rs. 2,20,000/- was paid by the complainant to the accused and it was duly acknowledged by the accused by executing Ex CW-1/A. From the evidence of the complainant it has been Kamlesh v. [ENTITY] CT No. 469467/16 15 of 21 established that the Cheque Ex CW-1/B was dishonoured due to Account Closed. This would lead to a presumption under [SECTION] of the [ACT], in favour of the complainant.
25. On the aspect of presumption under [SECTION] of the [ACT], [SECTION] of the said Act merely raises a presumption in regard to the second aspect of the matter, namely, that the cheque was drawn in discharge of debt or other liability. The existence of legally recoverable debt is not a matter of presumption under [SECTION] of the said Act. [SECTION] merely raises a presumption in favour of holder of cheque that the same has been issued for discharge of any debt or liability. Thus, even if presumption is not rebutted, Act, in order to attract [SECTION] of the debt has to be a "legally enforceable debt" as said is clear from the explanation to [SECTION] which provides that for the purposes of the said section the debt or other liability means a legally enforceable debt or other liability.
26. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. It is the duty of the courts that they must be on guard to see that merely on the application of presumption as contemplated under [SECTION] of the [ACT], the same may not lead to injustice or mistaken conviction.
Kamlesh v. [ENTITY] CT No. 469467/16 16 of 21
27. In the case of [PRECEDENT], the Apex Court held that, "We are not oblivious of the fact that the said provision has been inserted to regulate the growing business, trade, commerce and industrial activities of the country and the strict liability to promote greater vigilance in financial matters and to safeguard the faith of the creditor in the drawer of the cheque which is essential to the economic life of a developing country like India. This, however, shall not mean that the courts shall put a blind eye to the ground realities. Statute mandates raising of presumption but it stops at that. It does not say how presumption drawn should be held to have rebutted. Other important principles of legal jurisprudence, namely, presumption of innocence as human rights and the doctrine of reverse burden introduced by [SECTION] should be delicately balanced. Such balancing acts, indisputably would largely depend upon the factual matrix of each case, the materials brought on record and having regard to legal principles governing the same."
28. Now turning back to the facts of the present case, assuming that the presumption under [SECTION] of the said Act regarding existence of debt or liability is not rebutted, in order to attract [SECTION], the debt or liability has to be a "legally recoverable" debt or liability. As held by the Apex Court in the case of [PRECEDENT] (supra) there is no presumption under [SECTION] of the said Act that the debt is a legally recoverable debt Kamlesh v. [ENTITY] CT No. 469467/16 17 of 21
29. Turning to the document Ex CW-1/A, which alleged to have been executed by the accused on 16.05.2011 it would be necessary to scrutinize the same. Though it is testified by the complainant, CW-2 and CW-3 that it was signed by the accused, yet the accused contends that his signature has been forged. The complainant could have examined an Expert in order to prove the signature over the said document. It is correct that the accused raised an objection at the stage of CE and moved an application u/[SECTION] of [ACT] for sending receipt and the cheque in question to the FSL as he was disputing his signatures on the Ex CW-1/A, but the said application was dismissed and the accused was given liberty to call an Expert witness at the stage of DE, but the accused chose not to call the said witness. However, the same would not relive the complainant of the burden to prove her document, as, u/[SECTION] of [ACT], the onus was on her to prove the said document. It is clearly laid down u/[SECTION] of [ACT] and 103 of [ACT], if the document is alleged to be signed by any person, the signature must be proved to be in his handwriting and since the document was produced by the complainant, the burden of proof was on the complainant to show that the signatures were of the accused as he had denied his signatures on Ex CW-1/A, but still the complainant also chose to not call any expert witness to prove the signature. Further, the accused has admitted his signatures on the cheque which essentially is the essence of the Complaint; however he denied his signatures on the receipt. Bare perusal of Ex CW-1/A and Ex CW- 1/B shows that different inks were used. The contents of the cheque, receipt, signature of the witnesses and signature of the accused on the cheque are in one ink but the signature of the accused on the receipt is in a different ink. All throughout, the complainant and her witnesses have Kamlesh v. [ENTITY] CT No. 469467/16 18 of 21 alleged that the cheque and the receipt were signed by the accused in their presence and were handed over at the same time and thereafter the receipt and the contents of the cheque were written by the husband of the complainant, however it is strange to notice that the accused would sign the cheque by one pen and the receipt by the other pen even though the same were signed on the same day and at the same time. Ex CW-1/A, therefore, does not appear to be a genuine and authentic document indicating a legally enforceable debt and since the complainant has not proved her document therefore, the same cannot be read into evidence.
30. It is also quite interesting to note, that in the cross-examination, the complainant and her witnesses admit that the details of the cheque were written by the husband of the complainant at the request of the accused. If the accused had really borrowed Rs. 2,20,000/- from the complainant and it was admittedly a post dated cheque filled at the time of advancing the loan and executing the receipt, then the accused would have happily written the cheque in his own handwriting without asking CW-3 to write the same. This, therefore probabalize the contention of the accused that the cheque in question was given in a blank signed condition by way security in the year 2006 and that it has been misused by the complainant in connivance with her husband.
31. Thereafter, one defence witness was summoned i.e [ENTITY], Record Clerk, Record Room (Criminal), South, Saket, to bring on record the Kamlesh v. [ENTITY] CT No. 469467/16 19 of 21 Judgment ofCC No. 345/2013 which is Ex DW-6/A. Point B1 of EX DW-6/A shows, that on 11.04.2011, the complainant advanced a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- to one [ENTITY], and in the present case, she advanced a sum of Rs. 2,20,000/- to the accused on 16.05.11. It was submitted by the complainant in her cross examination that she had Rs. 70,000/- with her and the remaining amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- was given to her by her brother and the said amount was her savings which she had given to her brother earlier. This fact is nowhere averred by the complainant in her evidence by way of affidavit, complaint and neither does she files ITR to substantiate her contention. Also, from the cross-examination of the complainant, it is further revealed that the accused was involved in the work of sewing in a leather factory and he needed the loan to open up a leather factory, and apart that, complainant had no knowledge about the details of the factory, its location or whether it was actually opened or not. She further submitted that the accused had a sound financial condition at the time when she had advanced the loan, whereas, on the other hand she admitted that she knew that the accused sold his house before taking the loan and was staying at a rented premises. Moreover, perusal of the a/c statement of the accused i.e Ex DW-2/1, shows that the maximum balance that he had in his account from 2006-10 was Rs. 36,438/-. The said submissions cast a cloud on the version of the complainant and raises a question on the financial capacity of the complainant to advance a sum of Rs. 5,20,000/- in two months and that too when she accumulated the said amount by saving Rs. 5000-6000/- per month by stitching. It is strange that a person would advance her hard earned money to people just because they are in need and without verifying if they Kamlesh v. [ENTITY] CT No. 469467/16 20 of 21 are in sound financial condition to return the amount. This is not a normal conduct of a prudent man.
32. Therefore, in view of the above discussion and reason, in the opinion of this Court, the complainant has failed to prove that there was any legally recoverable debt payable by the accused to her. Resultantly, this Court finds the accused, [ENTITY] s/o Late Sh. [ENTITY], not guilty for the offence punishable u/[SECTION] [ACT]. Hence, he stands acquitted.
33. Further, accused is directed to furnish bail bond and surety bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- u/[SECTION] [ACT] and is directed to be present before the Ld. Appellate Court as and when notice is served upon him. Bail bonds not furnished. The accused is directed to furnish the Bail bonds on 29.8.19 with one surety of like amount.
Announced in the open Court on 27th August, 2019 ([ENTITY]) MM-04/[ACT] Kamlesh v. [ENTITY] CT No. 469467/16 21 of 21