TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (6) TMI 1076
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd registered as C.C.No.553 of 2010 alleging commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. His case was that he was the proprietor of `Tripunithura Cement Centre' engaged in the business of wholesale cement marketing and the accused/first respondent was also engaged in the business of selling cement. The accused used to purchase goods on credit basis from the complainant and for part payment of the price of goods purchased he issued Ext.P1 cheque dated 10.5.2005 drawn on Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd., Ponnurunni Branch for 30,312/-. When Ext.P1 cheque Rs. was presented for encashment it was dishonoured owing to the reason `account closed'. The appellant issued Ext.P3 lawyer notice dated 21.5.20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....him were incorrectly adverted to by the trial court in the judgment. The grievance of the appellant is only with respect to the manner of appreciation of the evidence tendered by him and not with respect to the evidence discussed in the judgment, in detail. The trial court found that the appellant did not produce any document to show that he is the proprietor of `Tripunithura Cement Centre'. The specific case of the appellant herein was that the accused/first respondent used to purchase the goods on credit basis from `Tripunithura Cement Centre' and it was in part payment of the price of goods purchased from there that Ext.P1 cheque was issued. In such circumstances, I do not find any infirmity in the conclusion arrived at by the co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sence of any case of draw down, as well. When the admitted position is that he has failed to produce any such documents to establish those facts I am of the view that the court below has arrived at only the irresistible and inevitable conclusion from the evidence on record. It is the appreciation of the aforesaid circumstances obtained from the evidence on record that constrained the trial court to arrive at the finding that the appellant had failed to prove that Ext.P1 cheque was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt and that the appellant had failed to prove the execution of the cheque. Evidently, the first respondent/accused has denied the execution of a cheque for discharging any legally enforceable debt in favour of the app....