TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (8) TMI 1234
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... private complainant is the appellant herein. 3. M/s. Sri Guruvayurappan Investments, represented by its proprietor Mr.K.Balan, through his Power Agent A. Sundaramoorthy has filed the private complainant before the learned XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondent herein. The respondent/accused borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,85,000/- in cash and executed a promisory note dated 24.04.2004 in favour of the complainant agreeing to pay interest at 36% per annum. The complainant made repeated demands for repayment of the amount and on such demand, the respondent issued a cheque for Rs. 3,00,000/- on 28.06.2004. On presentation of the cheque, the same was returned for wan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd accordingly, he gave a complaint on 10.06.2004 to the Ponneri Police station and marked documents to that effect. 7. On consideration of both oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Magistrate come to a conclusion that initially the complainant is entitled for presumption under 139 Negotiable Instruments Act and in view of the answer illustrated in the cross examination by PW1 and the documents filed by the accused/respondent and in view of the certain answer regarding non production of statutory accounts books, the Trial Magistrate has drawn adverse inference against the appellant/private complainant and held that the respondent has rebutted presumption in a manner known to law. Therefore, it was held that the private complainant has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Ex.D1, Ex.D2 and Ex.D3 issued by the Sree Guruvayurappan Chit Funds Private Limited to show that he was a member of a chit group and he also taken a chit prized amount. It is the specific case of the respondent that at the time of taking the prized chit amount, he has handed over two blank pro-note and two cheques signed by him and the same was misused by the private complainant/appellant herein. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that PW1 in his cross examination has admitted that he has not maintained any books of accounts for the amount lend to the respondent to the tune of Rs. 2,85,000/- and accordingly the Trial Court has disbelieved the allegations of PW1 and the same cannot be found fault with. 12. Yet another point is that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s best known to the private complainant, he has stated in the private complaint as if the respondent herein did not send any reply notice. In Ex.B6, It is the specific case of the respondent/accused that the cheques were issued to Sri Guruvayurappan Chit Funds Private Limited and no cheque was issued to the appellant firm. Further, as per Ex.D4 and D5 complaint and Non-traceable Certificate and the deposition of PW1 and the suppression of issuance of reply notice, Ex.D6 and acknowledgment, Ex.D7, in the complaint it creates grave suspension over the genuineness of the claim of the private complainant/appellant herein. 13. Taking into account the entirety of the circumstances into consideration and also taking into note of the fact that the....