Sec.138 ,139 and sec. 118 of N.I.Act – Burden of proof

Adv M Mohan 7th Dec 2013

Sec.138 ,139 and sec. 118 of N.I.Act – Burden of proof – when the complainant

 not able to say the date when the amount was given – when failed to produce

 source of income – when gave contradictory statement about filling of cheque

 whether by accused or by himself – when there is no pleading that cheque 

was filled with the consent of accused – mere lack of issuing a reply notice

 and mere non putting a suggestion that the cheque was a blank cheque 

are not countable points to over throw the positive admissions made by

 the complainant – Lower court rightly dismissed the complaint – 

High court wrongly with out assigning valid reasons convict the accused – 

Apex court set aside the high court orders 

= John K. Abraham …. Appellant VERSUS Simon C. Abraham & Another 

N THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2043 OF 2013

(@ SLP (CRL.) No.9505 of 2011)

John K. Abraham …. Appellant

 VERSUS

 

Simon C. Abraham & Another …. Respondents

 

J U D G M E N T

 

Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.

 

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of

Kerala at Ernakulam dated 15th December, 2010 passed in Criminal

Appeal No.452 of 2004.

3. The issue involved in this appeal arises under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act. The complaint was preferred by the

respondent No.1 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathanamthitta

alleging that appellant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from him and

issued a cheque for the said sum on 20.06.2001 drawn on Indian

Overseas Bank, Plankamon branch in discharge of the debt. It is the

further case of the respondent–complainant that when the cheque was

presented for encashment through Pathanamthitta District Co-operative

Bank, Kozhencherry branch, the same was returned by the bankers with

the endorsement ‘insufficient funds in the account of the accused’.

The respondent-complainant stated to have issued a lawyer’s notice on

14.07.2001, which was received by the appellant on 16.07.2001, but yet

there was no reply from the appellant. Based on the above averments

alleged in the complaint, the case was tried by the learned Chief

Judicial Magistrate.

 

4. The respondent herein was examined as PW.1 and Exhibits P-1 to P-6

were marked. None was examined on the side of the appellant. In the

questioning of the appellant made under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the

appellant took the stand that his son took the cheque from him and

that if at all anything was to be recovered, it had to be made from

the son of the appellant, since the appellant had not borrowed any

money.

 

5. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after considering the oral and

documentary evidence led on behalf of the respondent-complainant, held

that the respondent-complainant was making a prevaricating statement

as regards the issuance of the cheque, that he was not even aware of

the date when the amount was said to have been borrowed by the

appellant, that there was material alteration in the instrument and,

therefore, the respondent failed to establish a case under Section 138

of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Consequently, the learned Chief

Judicial Magistrate found the appellant not guilty and acquitted him

under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. The respondent preferred the appeal in

the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam and by the impugned order the

High Court reversed the judgment of the learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, convicted the appellant and imposed the sentence to pay a

fine of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation under Section 357(1) of Cr.P.C.

In default of making the payment of the fine amount, the appellant was

directed to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

 

6. We heard Mr. Romy Chacko, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.

Jogy Scaria, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. We also perused

the material papers placed before us, including the judgment of the

trial Court as well as the High Court. Having considered the above, we

are of the view that the High Court was in error in having reversed

the judgment of the trial Court.

7. When we examine the case of the respondent-complainant as projected

before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and the material evidence

placed before the trial Court, we find that the trial Court had noted

certain vital defects in the case of the respondent-complainant. Such

defects noted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate were as under:

a) Though the respondent as PW-1 deposed that the accused

received the money at his house also stated that he did not

remember the date when the said sum of Rs.1,50,000/- was paid

to him.

 

b) As regards the source for advancing the sum of Rs.1,50,000/-,

the respondent claimed that the same was from and out of the

sale consideration of his share in the family property, apart

from a sum of Rs.50,000/-, which he availed by way of loan

from the co-operative society of the college where he was

employed. Though the respondent stated before the Court below

that he would be in a position to produce the documents in

support of the said stand, it was noted that no documents

were placed before the Court below.

 

c) In the course of cross-examination, the respondent stated

that the cheque was signed on the date when the payment was

made, nevertheless he stated that he was not aware of the

date when he paid the sum of Rs.1,50,000/-.

d) According to the respondent, the cheque was in the

handwriting of the accused himself and the very next moment

he made a contradictory statement that the cheque was not in

the handwriting of the appellant and that he (complainant)

wrote the same.

 

e) The respondent also stated that the amount in words was

written by him.

 

f) The trial Court has also noted that it was not the case of

the respondent that the writing in the cheque and filling up

of the figures were with the consent of the accused

appellant.

 

8. In light of the above evidence, which was lacking in very many

material particulars, apart from the contradictions therein, the trial

Court held that the appellant was not guilty of the offence alleged

against under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and

acquitted him.

 

9. Keeping the above factors in mind, when we examine the judgment

impugned in this appeal, we find that the High Court committed a

serious illegality in reversing the judgment of learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate. While reversing the judgment of the trial Court, what

weighed with the learned Judge of the High Court was that in the 313

questioning, it was not the case of the appellant that a blank signed

cheque was handed over to his son and that even in the cross-

examination it was not suggested to PW-1 that a blank cheque was

issued. The High Court was also persuaded by the fact that the

appellant failed to send any reply to the lawyer’s notice, issued by

the respondent. Based on the above conclusions, the High Court held

that the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act could be easily drawn and that the appellant failed to

rebut the said presumption. On that single factor, the learned Judge

of the High Court reversed the judgment of the trial Judge and

convicted the appellant. It has to be stated that in order to draw the

presumption under Section 118 read along with 139 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act, the burden was heavily upon the complainant to have

shown that he had required funds for having advanced the money to the

accused; that the issuance of the cheque in support of the said

payment advanced was true and that the accused was bound to make the

payment as had been agreed while issuing the cheque in favour of the

complainant.

10. Keeping the said statutory requirements in mind, when we examine the

facts as admitted by the respondent-complainant, as rightly concluded

by the learned trial Judge, the respondent was not even aware of the

date when substantial amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was advanced by him to

the appellant, that he was not sure as to who wrote the cheque, that

he was not even aware when exactly and where exactly the transaction

took place for which the cheque came to be issued by the appellant.

Apart from the said serious lacuna in the evidence of the complainant,

he further admitted as PW.1 by stating once in the course of the cross-

examination that the cheque was in the handwriting of the accused and

the very next moment taking a diametrically opposite stand that it is

not in the handwriting of the accused and that it was written by the

complainant himself, by further reiterating that the amount in words

was written by him. We find that the various defects in the evidence

of respondent, as noted by the trial Court, which we have set out in

paragraph 7 of the judgment, were simply brushed aside by the High

Court without assigning any valid reason. Such a serious lacuna in the

evidence of the complainant, which strikes at the root of a complaint

under Section 138, having been noted by the learned trial Judge, which

factor was failed to be examined by the High Court while reversing the

judgment of the trial Court, in our considered opinion would vitiate

the ultimate conclusion reached by it. In effect, the conclusion of

the learned Judge of the High Court would amount to a perverse one

and, therefore, the said judgment of the High Court cannot be

sustained.

11. Having regard to our above conclusion, this appeal stands allowed. The

order impugned is set-aside, the conviction and sentence imposed on

the appellant is also set aside.

 

………….……….…………………………..J.

[Surinder Singh Nijjar]

Fifty companies owe more than Rs 40,000 crore to banks

FE George Mathew | Mumbai | Updated: Dec 06 2013, 09:42 IST

As much as 25 per cent of the total non-performing assets (NPAs) in public sector banks (excluding SBI) is accounted for by 50 corporates with Kingfisher Airlines and Winsome Diamond topping the list.

The combined default by the 50 corporates totalled to Rs 40,528 crore of bank loans. The total NPAs of public sector banks stood at Rs 1,64,461 crore. Vijay Mallya’s Kingfisher Airlines owes Rs 2,673 crore as per the combined NPA list of PSU banks released by the All India Bank Employees Association (AIBEA).

Winsome Diamond of Jatin Mehta defaulted Rs 2,660 crore, Electrotherm India Rs 2,211 crore, Zoom Developers Rs 1,810 crore, Sterling Biotech Rs 1,732 crore and S Kumars Nationwide Rs 1,692 crore. Among others, Winsome group company Forever Precious Jewellery has defaulted Rs 1,254 crore, Orchid Chemicals Rs 938 crore, Deccan Chronicle Rs 700 crore and Delhi Airport Metro Express by Rs 346 crore.

Companies such as Educomp and several infrastructure projects such as Lanco Hoskote and also figure in the list. “Since the RBI and the government are not publishing the list of loan defaulters, AIBEA will shortly publish a booklet containing the names of the top 30 defaulters in each bank,” CH Venkatachalam, general secretary, AIBEA.

Credit information companies like CIBIL, which are authorised by the RBI to keep track of bad lans data, reveal only the names of defaulters against whom banks have filed suits.

“Banks should publish the list of loan defaulters of Rs 1 crore and above and make willful default of loan a criminal offence. There should be an investigation to probe the nexus and collusion while siphoning off bank money. The government should amend recovery laws to speed up recovery of bad loans,” Venkatachalam said.

“We are witnessing looting of public money from the banks. On paper every thing is perfect, but borrowers don’t have the capacity to set up the project and repay the loan,” he said. Most of these 50 defaults occurred in the last two years.

“If you include the NPAs of around Rs 15,000 crore in SBI, bad loans of top corporates would touch Rs 65,000 crore. Details

on SBI’s NPAs would be released in a couple of days,” he said. While the popular notion suggests that the rising NPAs are due to the fallout of the global financial crisis, RBI data indicates that the credit administration in the banks had started weakening and the asset quality had started deteriorating even before the onset of the crisis. Slippages exceeded reduction in NPAs, especially post crisis, as the ratio of reduction in NPAs to slippages fell dramatically – from about 105.3 per cent in 2001-07 to 70.8 per cent in 2007-13, according to the RBI.

“The ratio of slippages to recovery and upgradation represents the extent to which banks have been able to reduce their NPAs through recovery efforts. The ratio for the banking sector as a whole deteriorated from a low of 125.4 per cent in 2005-06 to 264.1 per cent during 2009-10 and remained elevated at 257.0 per cent in 2012-13,” the RBI said.

RBI Deputy Governor KC Chakrabarty had last month criticised the approach of banks in handling bad assets. “Write offs contributed significantly to the reduction in the quantum of gross NPAs (in some years, write offs accounted for nearly 50 per cent of reduction) as compared to actual recoveries and upgradations. These practices clearly engender moral hazard issues as they reduce the banks’ drive to improve recovery efforts.”

'Stress tests show PSBs can handle 15% NPAs'

Mayur Shetty,TNN | Dec 7, 2013

MUMBAI: India Ratings, an affiliate of international rating agency
 Fitch, has said that ratings of public sector banks in India will 
never fall below AA- even if banks turn in losses. The agency
 has said that its stress tests show that theIndian banking
 system can withstand non-performing assets (NPAs) of even up to 15%.

"Our ratings floor for public sector banks is AA- because of 

government support. While the extent of government shareholding 

does not make a difference, the strategically important banks

 are more likely to get timely support," said Atul Joshi, MD & CEO,

 India Ratings and Research.

According to Joshi, India is the only country in the world where 

no bank has gone bust. "There have been bank mergers but 

depositors have not had to take a haircut," he said.

"There is too much noise in the global arena on the high level 

of non-performing assets and restructured loans with talks of 

non-performing loans going up to 4-6% and restructured loans

 for up to 8-10%," said Joshi. According to him, the concern 

is misplaced because Indian banks have many hidden strengths

 which do not get measured while being compared internationally.

"We measure countries based on macro prudential indicators, 

which are a measure of macro risks such as asset price bubbles.

 India ranks number one, which is the lowest risk, as against

 China and Indonesia which are at number 3, the highest level 

of risk," said Joshi. "Indian banks are better off compared to its 

peers on other counts such as capital adequacy ratio, loan to 

deposit ratio and bank assets to GDP ratio," said Joshi.

According to him, the biggest weakness among Indian banks

 was their 'single-name concentration' - loan accounts that

 account for a large chunk of a bank's share capital.

The other risks that Indian banks face are defaults on accounts

 of cyclical credit risks in industries such as textiles, steel and 

cement, and thirdly on account of exposure to large infrastructure 

projects.

"We conducted a stress test on Indian banks taking into account 

all these factors and also factored in a reduction in profits and 

capital. Several large banks would continue to report profits if 

Indian bank NPAs rose to 15%, many banks would turn in a loss 

but only four-five small banks would require a bailout of around

 $2 billion," said Joshi. For gross NPAs of Indian banks to rise 

to 15%, they will have to more than triple from their present

 level of around 4.5%.

The other hidden strength, according to Joshi, is the real estate

 holding of Indian banks. "Indian banks have huge real estate

 holdings in terms of apartments and office buildings. 

The market value of these assets is several times higher

 than what is reckoned in their books," he said. In recent 

years, international banks have generated hundreds of crores 

of cash by liquidating their real estate assets.

Rising Defaults II: Kingfisher on ground, banks' money up in the air

Aneesh Phadnis  |  BS  :Mumbai  

December 7, 2013 Last Updated at 00:42 IST

Mallya, who sold off his United Spirits to Diageo for $1 billion
 early this year, has not used this money to repay bank loans

About a year after Kingfisher Airlines shut shop, the only 
one still confident of a revival of the airline is Chairman 
Vijay Mallya. Just two months ago, the flamboyant promoter 
of Kingfisher Airlines and the UB group announced he was
 in talks with an investor to sell the airline. He had given a 
deadline of 90 days for the sale.

But as days pass, few share Mallya’s optimism. Slowly, 
Indian banks are realising they aren’t left with much, in terms
 of their loans to the airline. Mallya, who sold 25 per cent in
 his United Spirits to Diageo for $1 billion early this year, 
didn’t use this money to repay the loans. The 14 banks,
 led by State Bank of India (SBI), which lent Rs 6,500 crore
 to the airline, are now involved in litigation over the money
, as Mallya has sued them in multiple courts. Bankers say 
they started the recovery process in March 2013, as the
 company’s dues had exceeded Rs 2,400 crore.

Not just banks, investors and employees of Kingfisher
 Airlines are also going home empty-handed. The airline’s 
stock has seen a steady decline — from its peak market
 value of Rs 3,888 crore in 2007, the company’s value has 
fallen to Rs 407 crore. The stock is being quoted at about
 Rs 5. The airline’s employees haven’t received salaries for
 the last year-and-a-half.

Kingfisher Airlines took off well in 2005, even carving a
 niche for itself. But a Rs 550-crore deal in 2007 to buy 
out Gopinath’s Deccan Airways, along with other sundry
 mistakes, pulled it down. Today, Mallya owes money to
 banks, employees, tax officials, caterers, aircraft leasing 
companies, fuel supplier Hindustan Petroleum Corporation
 and to taxi operators, too.

Kingfisher Airlines did not respond to an email query 
seeking comment.

The entire aviation industry has seen difficult times. “The reason
 for airlines making losses has been a high increase in fuel cost
 through the last couple of years, coupled with weakening of
 the rupee. Further, interest costs have also increased due to
 the purchase of new aircraft. The increased costs due to all
 these factors cannot be directly passed on to customers in
 view of the price war among airlines,” says M P Chhajed, 
a city-based auditor.

Banks, meanwhile, started selling shares of United Spirits and
 Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilisers, given as collateral
 against the loan, and netted about Rs 600 crore. That is
 all banks have secured so far; their recovery drive has been 
stymied by the airline challenging all claims against it. In March 
this year, UB group moved the Bombay High Court against the 
sale of shares, but secured no interim relief. In May, the
 lenders recalled the entire loan of about Rs 6,000 crore, 
asking Mallya to return the entire amount at once.

Through the last eight months, UB group and the lenders have 
been at loggerheads over the possession of Kingfisher House,
 the airline’s office here, and Mallya’s villa in Goa. Both properties
 were given as security against the loan. To recover the dues, 
the lenders have also filed applications in the Debt Recovery 
Tribunal (DRT) Bangalore. “The presiding officer of DRT 
Bangalore has heard the banks, but Kingfisher's defence 
against the interim applications is yet to be heard. In the 
interim application, banks have sought a declaration of 
assets, injunction against delineation of properties, attachment
 of properties and such other relief,” said a banker privy
 to the development.

“We will not be able to generate more than Rs 1,000 crore through
 the sale of shares and from the Mumbai and Goa properties,”
 the banker said. Therefore, the case before DRT is crucial, 
as an order will allow lenders to lay claim even on Mallya’s 
and UB group’s personal and non-pledged assets. However,
 the tribunal was overburdened and a final recovery order in
 the Kingfisher case might take years, lawyers say.

The Karnataka HC, while hearing a winding-up petition against the
 airline, asked banks to maintain status quo, with regard to the 
company’s Mumbai office, till December 6, as the airline said 
it was in talks with investors for a revival. A local court in Goa
, too, stayed banks’ attempts to take possession of Mallya’s 
villa in Goa. Two days ago, banks secured a restraint order 
from DRT against UB group company Kingfisher Finvest, 
restraining it from transferring any property or dealing with 
the proceeds from the sale of its shares.

If this year has been marked by acrimony, 2010 was a period 
of bonhomie between the airline and its lenders. In a controversial 
decision in November 2010, public sector banks, failing to read
 the signs of a financially sick airline, restructured Rs 7,650 crore 
of debt, converting a portion of it into preferential shares. 
The banks announced a two-year moratorium on the repayment,
 reduced interest and additional funding. After the restructuring,
 the airline’s total debt fell to Rs 6,300 crore.

To worsen matters, in March 2011, Rs 750 crore of preferential 
shares issued to banks was converted into equity shares at Rs 64.48
 a share, a premium of 61 per cent. During that quarter, banks and
 other financial institutions held 23 per cent stake in the airline
. A year later, when the lock-in period for shareholding ended, 
banks started selling shares at a loss, reducing their holding 
to 13 per cent.

The banks had hoped the debt restructuring would provide a 
breather to the airline and allow it to restructure its operations.
 On its part, the airline announced plans to reduce debt and make
 changes in its business model. Till then, the airline ran two
 service models (the full-service brand and the no-frills service
, introduced after the airline bought Air Deccan).

The airline estimated the reduction in finance costs and tweaking
 the business model would lead to gains of Rs 2,190 crore.
 It firmed up plans to hive off its ATR operations, loyalty programme
 and engineering unit into separate companies, none of which 
materialised. Despite a generous debt recast, the airline was
 unable to generate profits. In fact, it didn’t record profits in its 
seven years of operations. 
By March-end 2013, the airline’s accumulated losses stood
 at a staggering Rs 16,000 crore.

By December 2011, about a year after the debt restructuring, 
SBI said Kingfisher loans had turned bad. The bank had
 exposure of Rs 1,500 crore to the airline. Soon, other 
banks declared Kingfisher loans non-performing assets (NPAs).
 Following this, the airline made a pitch for additional loans
, but these were denied. Then, the airline approached smaller 
banks in the consortium, banks that hadn’t categorised the
 loans as NPAs. A series of meetings between banks and 
Kingfisher Airline executives followed. Mallya then made a
 few presentations, outlining revival plans for the airline.
 In October 2012, the airline stopped operations, after 
engineers stopped work due to non-payment of salaries.
 The Directorate General of Civil Aviation suspended the airline
’s operating permit. As for the sale of the airline, Mallya remains optimistic.

GROUNDED

* Nov 2010: Banks restructure Rs 7,500 crore loan. 
A portion of the loan was converted into equity, fresh funding 
granted and repayment term extended

* January-March 2012: Banks begin to declare KFA loan
s as NPA after the airline fails to service interest

* October 2012: Kingfisher shuts operations

* March 2013: Lenders sell pledged shares of United Spirits
 and Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilisers Ltd

* April 2013: Kingfisher moves Bombay High Court against 
sale of shares, does not secure relief

* May 2013: Lenders recall Kingfisher's entire
 Rs 6,000-crore loan

SBI graft case: Loan given in ‘ordinary course of business’, says internal report

State Bank of India’s two-member internal enquiry committee seems to have exonerated Deputy Managing Director Shyamal Acharya of the allegations of wrongdoing in the sanction of a Rs 75-crore loan to a Delhi-based company.

The internal enquiry committee, comprising Managing Directors Hemant Contractor and A. Krishna Kumar, concluded that sanction for the loan by the credit committee headed by Acharya “appears to have been given in the ordinary course of business”.

The bank has submitted the internal enquiry report to the Department of Financial Services, said a bank spokesperson.

The committee was set up immediately after the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on November 25 registered a case of alleged graft against SBI Deputy Managing Director, Mid-Corporate Group, Shyamal Acharya, Chairman of a New Delhi-based private company and others.

CBI, in its press release last month said the DMD allegedly influenced his office to process the loan application of the private company and got the loan of Rs 75 crore sanctioned.

CBI’s allegations

“After sanction of the said loan, the Chairman of the said private company allegedly paid Rs 25 lakh to his Advisor (a former SBI official) as reward and also paid Rs 15 lakh to him for further giving it to the DMD as reward.

“After receipt of the said amount of Rs 15 lakh, Advisor (former AGM, SBI) allegedly purchased one Rolex and one Omega wrist watch worth Rs 7.75 lakh (approximately) and visited the office of the SBI DMD at Mumbai and delivered the said two wrist watches to him,” said the CBI.

According to the Bureau, upon delivery of the wrist watches, the Advisor (former SBI official) was apprehended by the CBI.

The two wrist watches were recovered from the DMD’s office cabin. 

CBI said searches at residential and office premises of the accused were conducted.

(This article was published in the Business Line print edition dated December 7, 2013)

South African anti-apartheid icon Nelson Mandela,

Former South African President Nelson Mandela, who served 27 
years in prison for anti-apartheid activities and led his continent 
into a new era, has died at age 95.

World leader, civil rights icon, South African hero, Nelson Mandela will
 be remembered not only through the millions of lives he touched 
throughout his long life, but also through the words of wisdom he 
has shared in speeches all across the world.

From his rabble-rousing while leading South Africa's anti-apartheid
 movement, to his first address as the newly elected president of 
South Africa, Nelson Mandela's speeches remind us just how
 powerful and world-changing words can be. As we reflect on
 his legacy, check out some of Nelson Mandela's most poignant
 and eloquent moments in front of a microphone.

To celebrate the life of the former South African 
president and political activist, here are 10 quotes
 that embody the advice and observations of a
 man who has devoted his life to the service
 of humanity.

1. “Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate.
 Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond
measure. It is our light, not our darkness, that most
 frightens us. Your playing small does not serve
the world. There is nothing enlightened about
shrinking so that other people won’t feel insecure
around you. We are all meant to shine as children
do. It’s not just in some of us; it is in everyone.
And as we let our own lights shine, we
unconsciously give other people permission
 to do the same. As we are liberated from our
own fear, our presence automatically
 liberates others.”

2. “I am fundamentally an optimist. Whether that
 comes from nature or nurture, I cannot say.
Part of being optimistic is keeping one’s head
pointed toward the sun, one’s feet moving forward.
 There were many dark moments when my faith
in humanity was sorely tested, but I would not and
 could not give myself up to despair. That way
lays defeat and death.”

3. “No one is born hating another person because
 of the color of his skin, or his background, or his
 religion. People must learn to hate, and if they
can learn to hate, they can be taught to love,
 for love comes more naturally to the human
heart than its opposite.”

4. “A leader. . .is like a shepherd. He stays behind
 the flock, letting the most nimble go out ahead,
 whereupon the others follow, not realizing that
all along they are being directed from behind.”

5. “I learned that courage was not the absence of
fear, but the triumph over it. The brave man is not
he who does not feel afraid, but he who
 conquers that fear.”

6. “There is no passion to be found playing small
—in settling for a life that is less than the one you
are capable of living.”

7. “If you want to make peace with your enemy,
 you have to work with your enemy. Then he
becomes your partner.”

8. “There is no easy walk to freedom anywhere,
 and many of us will have to pass through the valley
 of the shadow of death again and again before we
 reach the mountaintop of our desires.”

9. “There is nothing like returning to a place
 that remains unchanged to find the ways in
which you yourself have altered.”

10. “Overcoming poverty is not a task of charity,
it is an act of justice. Like Slavery and Apartheid,
poverty is not natural. It is man-made and it can be
overcome and eradicated by the actions of
 human beings. Sometimes it falls on a
generation to be great. YOU can be that
 great generation. Let your greatness blossom.”