Firslty, Sir, there has been a presumption in the eyes of law that if you are giving cheque a then it means that you have borrowed some money from him.

Secondly, and it is then the liability of a person to pay the amount back to that person.

Thirdly, but Sir, now a point which is in your favour is that the amount which he gave was not from the bank only hard core cash to you.

Fourhtly, and one most needed requirement is that the cheque must be filled with the amount also.

Fifthly, it means that his intentions were never been good and in friendly behaviour he took 9 cheques.

Hello,

What evidences were adduced by you at the time of evidence and also what evidences were adduced by him?

Since those were the blank cheques which have been file by him take defense of section 87 which reads as follow:

Section 87 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

87. Effect of material alteration.—Any material alteration of a negotiable instrument renders the same void as against any one who is a party thereto at the time of making such alteration and does not consent thereto, unless it was made in order to carry out the common intention of the original parties; Alteration by indorsee.—And any such alteration, if made by an indorsee, discharges his indorser from all liability to him in respect of the consideration thereof. The provisions of this section are subject to those of sections 20, 49, 86 and 125.

1) did your counsel questioned with petitioner

about promissory note.

2) did your counsel questioned with petitioner

about his income

3) did your counsel questioned with petitioner

about transactions,how he made payment to

you..

It is his duty to show legally payable debt.

You force on the point that there is no legally enforceable debt.

Regards

RUCCS had given a loan of Rs 2 lakh to a person named Rajendra Varma in 2000. Varma had issued 10 blank post-dated cheques at the time as a security for repayment. One of these cheques, dated January 2008, bounced following which RUCCS filed criminal complaint against Varma.

However, the magistrate's court held that Varma was not guilty under the NI Act and acquitted him. The Society filed an application in Aurangabad bench of High Court seeking its permission to file appeal in sessions court.

The High Court noted that NI Act was intended to give more credibility to cheque as a financial instrument; "however, the object was not to provide effective and speedy remedy for recovery of loans," it said.

"Law makers must not have intended or imagined that money lenders or banks would obtain blank or post dated cheques while sanctioning/disbursing loans as securities and would use them to make debtors/borrowers to repay loan under threat of prosecution and punishment under Section 138 of NI Act," Justice Borkar held dismissing the application.

"It is doubtful if provisions of Section 138 attracted to a case in which a blank or post dated cheque is obtained by a bank or money lender before or while sanctioning or disbursing loan amount as security for the loan," the judge said.

1) how was loan given to you by cash or cheque ?

2) bank statement would reflect loan amount given to you

3) if Rs 9 lakhs loan given it has to be reflected by lender in his income tax returns

4) you have to contest false case filed by lender on merits

Court would not accept statement of complainant that Rs 7 lakhs given in cash

2) your argument should be there is no debt due and payable

In cross complainant has admitted he does not have any evidence of Rs 8 lakhs given as loan

2) it is not reflected in income tax returns filed by complainant

You need to file a mandamus writ petition in the HIGH COURT as the opposite party is making false claims and the High Court will ask the source of income.

Sir the complainant has to establish the legal debt to you, further he has to also show the capacity to give the loan amount , further since there is no proof of the transaction and there is no such income the person is having court shall not accept the argument that the said amount was given in cash further he has no document to support from where he received the amount so this point can be argued and the court shall take this in consideration.

Further corroborating this the legal notice was given by you before the complaint and cheques so that shall help you.

Further if the matter sis already argued and kept for order then considering all this scenario the court shall pass the order as no documentary evidence to support claim there is no material record of debt and payment. your legal notice and no tax returns and books to show the income

1. the complainant has to prove that he gave you a loan of 9 lacs

2. onus is not on you

3. you just have to prove that you were given a loan of 2 lakhs which you paid to complainant in 2 equal instalments

4. may i know the reason why did you give him 9 blank cheques? you could have given him a single blank cheque

Appoint a lawyer experienced in cheque bounce matters and then approach the relevant court.

Since he has already file the cheque bounce case, you have no option than to challenge the same properly with the support of documentary evidences in your favor.

You may even negotiate the settlement with him and try to get the case disposed on compromise and withdrawal.

at the cross time he told given 7 lakhs in cash for loan he donot give any proof of income now it going arguments are finished help me

The admission of your signature in the cheque will be more than an evidence for the case to be decided against you.

Further you have yourself mentioned in your legal notice that you owe him Rs. 1 lakh, hence the court may catch that point to punish you for the seven lakhs as claimed by the complainant.

You may better compromise with him by agreeing to pay half the amount claimed, if he agrees then you will be safe.

at the time of cross he told account books are maintain by him but he donot give any records for my loan amount and no income for give loan to me

then what steps next ?

Even though this would support your defence, but it is you who have committed for having taken loan from him to a huge ext4ent and have clearly stated that balance of Rs. 1 lakh is the only outstanding amount, hence it is proved that he had the capacity to lend this big amount by your own admission.

Even now you have chance for making to withdraw the case if you negotiate settlement with him.

1. In a cheque bounce prosecution there is a presumption that the cheque in question was given to discharge a legally enforceable debt. To put it plainly, it creates a presumption of the liability of the accused. The onus is then on the accused to lead evidence to rebut this presumption.

2. You say that you took 2 lakhs as a friendly loan. You will have to rely on the notice that you gave him to rebut this presumption of your liability.

3. If books of accounts are maintained by him and yet he does not produce those in the court then the court can conclude that you have rebutted the presumption.

4. The entire case will hinge on his cross examination.