TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 1446
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itha Labour Body Works. The accused used to buy spare parts in Automobiles from the appeallant/complainant on credit basis. Thus the respondent/accused purchased goods for a sum of Rs. 1,46,208/- from the appellant/complainant on credit basis and issued a cheque (Ex.P.1) bearing No.271210 dated 09.08.2004 drawn on Indian Bank, Sankagiri Branch. When the appellant/complainant presented the above said cheque on 13.09.2004 for encashment through his bankers namely, Indian Bank, Sankagiri Branch, the cheque was returned for the reason insufficient funds as evidenced by the cheque return memo (Ex.P.3) and the debit advice (Ex.P.4). Thereafter, the appellant/complainant issued a notice dated 16.08.2004, a copy of which is marked as Ex.P.5, to the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on record to substantiate this contention of the respondent/accused, the trial Court had acquitted the respondent/accused U/s 255(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (iv) When there is no dispute about the execution of the cheque, the trial Court ought to have allowed the complaint. (v) The trial Court has failed to note that the respondent/accused has not proved his case by adducing cogent evidence. 4. The point for consideration is whether the order of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Sankari is liable to be setaside?. 5. In the trial Court, the appellant/complainant examined himself and one another witness and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11. The respondent examined himself and one another witnes....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....respondent/accused is that he had given the subject cheque to Pazhaniyappan after taking a loan of Rs. 50,000/-from him in December 2002 and the same cheque was handed over to the appellant/copmplainant by the said Pazhaniyappan which has resulted in this litigation. The respondent/accused thus denied of having any dues to the appellant/complainant and also of having issued any cheque to him towards the same. 7. The trial Court had relied on various Rulings regarding the rebuttal of the statutory presumption as envisaged under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. The learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Sankagiri has shifted the onus of proving that there was a liability of Rs. 1,46,208/-, on the appellant/complainant. According....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ence on the side of the accused. It is also true that they can also rely on the inconsistent plea of the appellant/complainant. But, in the instant case, the respondent/accused has admitted that there were regular business transactions with the appellant/complainant for the past ten years. 9. The learned counsel for the respondent/accused further contended that the cheque was given to one Mr.Pazhaniappan as early as 2002 and that there was a personal enmity with the said Mr.Pazhaniappan are all to be substantiated, in order to rebut the presumption. The respondent/accused instead of trying to substantiate these factors as harped on the non-production of account books by the appellant/complainant as a moot point to rebut the presumption. ....