138 ni act

Dont worry it is very much possible to prove 

It is possible to prove the point you are relying upon 

do get in touch 9999276662

advaksh*tnavaney@gmail.com

On the date of first hearing you will have to apply for bail. It may be a cash surety or surety of a person. Be prepared for that. There is a dictum "truth is only one whereas falsehood would be varied and many for the same episode. You carefully read the lawyer's notice that you received and the court summons. If true the narration of the case would be same on both because truth is only one. If it is fabricated story, you are sure to find some discrepancies and variations. You can expose them through cross-examination of complainant and the so called friend to whom you had originally given the cheque. Rupees three lakhs is too large an amount to be given in cash. Payment of any amount more than Rs.20000/- in banned under the income-tax act. You can ask the compalainant about the source of such large amount and bank transactions to prove that. You allege that it was unaccounted cash. There are court judgments that section 138 will not apply for unaccounted cash.

You file a police case against your so called friend and the complainant for cheating and criminal  conspiracy. There is a lot of problem for you. But if the case is properly argued there is nothing to worry.

By defaulter do you mean Ms Ranjita Narayan? Yes Income tax laws will apply to her also. But she has not stated that she paid any amount to any body by cash. Whatever payment which she had made, she says,  was by online transfer. It is the complainant who claims that he paid cash of Rs.3 lakhs. Further what I had stated was a judgment and not necessarily my own views.

By defaulter do you mean Ms Ranjita Narayan? Yes Income tax laws will apply to her also. But she has not stated that she paid any amount to any body by cash. Whatever payment which she had made, she says,  was by online transfer. It is the complainant who claims that he paid cash of Rs.3 lakhs. Further what I had stated was a judgment and not necessarily my own views.

I am not a lawyer and I cannot represent anyone in a court of law. But I have successfully helped people who have defended themselves in similar cases. Under Section 139 there is a presumption that the cheque had been issued in discharge of a liability and, if otherwise, the burden of proof is on the accused. The requisites of Section 139 are (1) there should be a cheque issued in favour of the complainant.(2) once there is a valid cheque it is issued in discharge of a liability. Please remember Section 139 is the reverse of normal presumption under the law of natural justice that a person is not guilty until proven otherwise. This also weighs in favour of the accused. Point (1) of Section 139 is satisfied because there exists a cheque.  You have to rebut point No.2. The first question here would be “Why you issued the cheque?”  You have given a valid reply here. In order to further prove your point you can cross-examine the so called friend. Your transactions with the so called friend through RTGS and their dates would be further evidence. If your so called friend is really your friend no further evidence would be necessary. If you had issued other cheques from the same cheque book before and after that will be basis for the approximate date of the cheque. Nowadays cheques are valid only for 3 months. If the cheque was presented beyond  d the 3 months that would be further. If it is so, you can also show sufficient bank balance on the date the alleged loan was taken. It is not at all difficult to rebut Section 139.