2018 (8) TMI 1235

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e said amount. Further on 28.02.2002 again the respondent/accused borrowed another sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- and issued another post dated cheque dated 28.02.2002 towards discharge of the said sum. On instructions when these cheques were presented for collection before the Indian Overseas Bank, Modachre Branch. They were returned for the reason that the payment stopped by the respondent/accused, by letter dated 05.08.2002. Therefore, the appellant/complainant filed the complaint to punish the accused under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 3. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore after taking cognizance against the accused in C.C.No.238 of 2002 and after furnishing the copies to the accused, since the accused pleaded not guilt....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bt and the accused is liable to be prosecuted. The accused issued cheque with clear intention to cheat the appellant/complainant, since the cheque belongs to one M/s.T.S.Subramaniyam & sons Company and it was signed by the accused and issued. Therefore, the complainant proved his case and sought for conviction of the respondent. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the accused never served any statutory notice as required under the provision of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Further, there is absolutely no relationship between the complainant and the accused and he had never seen him before and he did not know about the complainant. Therefore, there is absolutely no need for him to borrow any amount from the compl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d Company. In fact, P.W.3 the Manager of the Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., Perundurai deposed that the alleged cheque Ex.P.1 and Ex.P2 issued from the Account No.336 and the said account stands in the name of T.S. Subramaniam & Sons Company and it is a partnership firm. Further, the said account was freezed by the Income Tax Department and on receipt of letter to stop payment, the said cheques were returned. He has further, deposed that the said Company consisting of the partners, namely Mr.P.S.Chellakumarasamy and P.S.Subramaniam. Therefore, it is proved that the alleged cheques Ex.P.1 and Exp.2 are not belonging to the account of the accused. Therefore, the complainant failed to prove his case. 9. P.W.1 deposed and admitted that Ex.P.1 and Ex....