TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (8) TMI 1
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere produced by the complainant. Even the complainant has not produced the chit book, jewellery receipts before this Court. Therefore, the complainant failed to establish the source of income etc.....', and further opined that '....the Accused (Respondent) had established his valuable defence during the trial that the cheque in question was not issued by him for legally enforceable debt...' and finally found him not guilty in respect of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and acquitted him under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C., 4. Questioning the validity and correctness of the 'Judgment of Acquittal' dated 24.10.2016 in S.T.C.No.32 of 2015 passed by the trial Court, the Petitioner / Appellant / Complainant has preferred an instant Appeal by taking a plea that the Respondent / Accused had not issued any reply and further, he had not denied the signature contained in the cheque. 5. That apart, it is represented on behalf of the Petitioner / Appellant that in the instant case, the Respondent / Accused had not denied that the cheque does not belong to him, also the Bank accounts and the Serial Number of the cheque and other aspects were not d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... bearing No.928959 dated 27.10.2014 for Rs. 5,00,000/- drawn on the South Indian Bank Ltd., Bhavani Branch towards the proper discharge of the aforesaid 'Legally Enforceable Debt'. 11. The Petitioner / Appellant / Complainant's case is that he presented the cheque in question for collection on 27.10.2014 through his Banker, viz., Karur Vysya Bank Limited, Kavindapady Branch, but the said cheque was dishonoured on 13.11.2014 with a cover note specifying 'Funds Insufficient'. As a matter of fact, the Petitioner / Appellant / Complainant had received Return Memo on 13.11.2014 itself. 12. It transpires that the Petitioner / Appellant / Complainant had issued Lawyer's Notice, Ex.P.3 dated 25.11.2014 to the Respondent / Accused calling upon him to pay the aforesaid sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- due under the cheque within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice and the same was received on 26.11.2014, as per Ex.P.4 - Acknowledgement Card. In as much as the Respondent / Accused had not paid the cheque amount inspite the receipt of the Ex.P.3 Lawyer's Notice dated 25.11.2014, the Petitioner / Appellant / Complainant was constrained to file the complaint before ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rs. 5,00,000/- to the Respondent / Accused and further he does not know for the said amount, loan document was prepared and a case was filed before the Sub Court, Bhavani. Also, he had denied a suggestion that because of his acquaintance with Sidhivinayagar, the said persons had filed the present case in S.T.C No.32 of 2015 against the Respondent / Accused in his name. 18. D.W.1 (the Respondent / Accused) in his evidence had stated that he does not know the Petitioner / Appellant / Complainant and only after receipt of Lawyer's Notice (Ex.P.3), he came to know as to who is the Complainant and further he came to know that the Petitioner / Appellant / Complainant had filed the instant case against him at the instigation of one Sidhivinayagar. 19. D.W.1 proceeds to utter in his evidence that he took loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- from the said Sidhivinayagar in the last month of the year 2010 and towards security for the said loan he gave One blank document, Five South Indian Bank Cheques, Three Blank Documents and Two Pro-notes. Further, he had paid the interest for one year and that Sidhivinayagar had filed a Civil Case in O.S.No.17 of 2012 as per Ex.D-1 (Certified copy of the Plaint....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....shed aside that the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act although it is a civil liability, it is tainted with a criminal tinge. Even then it is the duty of the Petitioner / Appellant / Complainant's side to establish his / its case against the Respondent / Accused beyond doubt. 26. As far as the present case is concerned, at one stage, (in cross examination) P.W.1 had stated that he had raised a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-, which was lent by him to the Respondent / Accused by taking a chit, by keeping jewels and from the money that was in his possession, significantly in his evidence P.W.1 / Complainant had stated that he does not remember from whom he had taken the chit. Also he had stated that he had kept the jewels for Rs. 1,25,000/- and presently the said loan was also wiped out, but strangely he had stated in his evidence that he had not mortgaged the jewels for the purpose of advancing this money to the Respondent / Accused. 27. At the risk of repetition, this Court aptly points out that P.W.1 in his evidence (during cross examination) had stated that he had given the money of Rs. 5,00,000/- from his savings which he saved in a small manner. P.W.1 also ....