2017 (12) TMI 970

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pondent-accused approached him and informed him that the then Minister of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board is his close relative and that he could secure a job for his brother-in-law in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and demanded a sum of Rs. 6,50,000/- as consideration for securing the job. The appellant had paid a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- on 20.06.2002 and Rs. 2,00,000/- on 18.07.2002 and Rs. 1,50,000/-on 15.08.2002. Thus, totally a sum of Rs. 6,50,000/- was paid by the appellant. 3. However, the respondent did not keep up his promise of securing the job in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and when the appellant requested him to return back the money, the respondent executed a Declaration Deed dated 25.09.2002 in favour of the appellant and....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cused under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. 6. Aggrieved against the said orders passed by the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore the present appeal is filed by the appellant on the following grounds:- (i) The Lower Court has committed an error in holding that Section 58 of the Negotiable Instrument Act would apply to the facts of the present case. (ii) The Lower Court also failed to see that the respondent had issued a cheque towards repayment of money received by him and that there is legally enforceable debt. 7. The point for consideration is whether the order of acquittal passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate can be sustained. 8. At the outset, it may be observed that the appellant's admitted case is....