TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (8) TMI 82
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g the conviction and sentenced imposed by the trial Court. Now, Challenging the same, the present criminal revision case has been filed. 2. The case of the respondent/complainant is as follows:- The petitioner/accused borrowed a sum of Rs. 9,50,000/- as hand loan from the complainant for his family expenses and for developing his business. In order to discharge the above said loan amount, the petitioner/accused issued a cheque, bearing No.515386 for Rs. 9,50,000/- drawn on ICICI Bank, Dharmapuri Branch. When the complainant presented the cheque for collection with his bank, State Bank of India, Dharmapuri Branch on 26.03.2005 and the same was returned due to insufficiency funds in the petitioner's account. Thereafter, the respondent/complainant issued a legal notice on 08.10.2005 and the petitioner has received the same, but he failed to comply with the notice and did not pay the amount. Hence, the petitioner committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and filed the above private complaint. In order to prove his case, the respondent/complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and marked four documents. Ex.P1 is the cheque issued by the petitio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he xerox copy of the cheque bearing Nos.498388 and 498389 in the name of one Sankar and Murugan was marked as Ex.D8. 5. Considering the above materials, the trial Court convicted the petitioner/accused as stated in first paragraph of this judgment. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the said conviction and sentence was also dismissed by the lower appellate Court and confirmed the conviction and sentence. Now, Challenging the same, the present criminal revision case has been filed. 6. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the materials available on record. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the respondent/complainant failed to prove that there is a legally enforceable debt and the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs. 9,50,000/- from the respondent. The blank cheques given by the petitioner in the year 2002, has been misused by the respondent and using the same the present complaint has been filed. Even though, there is an initial presumption on the petitioner, the petitioner rebutted the presumption by placing Ex.D5, Ex.B.6, the statements of accou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s in the year,2002, he has not proved that the said cheque was misused by the respondent by any acceptable evidence. Since the petitioner has failed to rebut the initial presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, the Courts below on considering all the materials, convicted the petitioner, there is no illegality and perversity in the judgment of the Courts below, and he sought for dismissal of the criminal revision case. In support of his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent relied upon the following Judgments:- 1. Vijay Vs. Laxman and another reported in 2013(1)MWN(Cr.) DCC 161 (SC). 2. Y.Sreelatha @ Roja Vs.Mukanchand Bothra reported in 2002 SCC Online Mad 30. 3. P.Pandiyarajan Vs. Sri.Parkunan reported in 2015 SCC Online Mad 156. 4. Lekh Raj Sharma Vs. Yash Pal Gupta reported in 2015 SCC Oline Del 10074. 5. Krishna P.Marajkar Vs.Joe Ferrao and another reported in 2013 SCC Online Bom 862. 6. Rangappa Vs. Sri Mohan reported in 2010(11) SCC 441. 9. I have considered the rival submissions. 10. It is the specific case of the respondent/complainant that, the petitioner has borrowed a sum of Rs. 9,50,000/- as hand loan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Bank of India, Dharmapuri, was marked as Ex.D6. Apart from that the petitioner also marked the summary statement of accounts issued by the ICICI Bank as Ex.D5. From the above statement of accounts, it could be seen that on 16.05.2003, the respondent, namely,P.Krishnakumar, withdraw a sum of Rs. 48,000/- by using the cheque bearing No.515385. It is pertinent to mention here that the present cheque in dispute is bearing No.515386 drawn on the same ICICI Bank, alleged to have been issued in the year 2005. Apart from that the petitioner said to have given a complaint against the respondent before the District Crime Branch, Dharmapuri for the offence under Section 420 IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act alleging that the petitioner only borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- from the respondent and he has repaid the same with interest to the tune of Rs. 7,28,000/- and despite the payment, the respondent has demanded more interest from the petitioner. The above said complaint and the first information report were marked as Exs.D1 and D2. Hence, from the above materials, the petitioner has raised a probable defence which creates doubt whether the r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t, in R.V.E.VENKATACHALA GOUNDER Vs. ARULMIGHU VISWESARARSWAMI & V.M.TEMPLE AND ANOTHER reported in 2003 (8) SCC 752, considered the scope of objection regarding the admissibility of the document in evidence, has held as follows:- "The objections as to admissibility of documents in evidence may be classified into two classes:- (i) an objection that the document which is sought to be proved is itself inadmissible in evidence; and (ii) where the objection does not dispute the admissibility of the document in evidence but is directed towards the mode of proof alleging the same to be irregular or insufficient. In the first case, merely because a document has been marked as 'an exhibit', an objection as to its admissibility is not excluded and is available to be raised even at a later stage or even in appeal or revision. In the latter case, the objection should be taken when the evidence is tendered and once the document has been admitted in evidence and marked as an exhibit, the objection that it should not have been admitted in evidence or that the mode adopted for proving the document is irregular cannot be allowed to be raised at any stage subsequent to the marking of the....