AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (8) TMI 1293
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he tune of 2,00,000/- on 05.04.2002 and undertake to pay interest at the rate of 24% per month. He also executed a promissory note to the said sum. The accused towards repayment of the part of the loan amount, has issued a cheque bearing No.957011 dated 11.09.2002 for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- drawn on Karur Vasya Bank, Dindivanam Branch. The cheque was presented on 12.09.2002 and it was returned dishonoured for the reason, no sufficient funds . Therefore, he caused statutory notice on 04.10.2002 and after receipt of the same, the accused sent a reply notice dated 04.10.2002 denying the averments and allegations made in the statutory notice. Therefore, the appellant filed the complaint. 3. The Trial Court after furnishing the copies to the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cheque issued by the accused was marked as Ex.P.2. The return memo and paying slip were marked as Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4. The counterfeit of the deposit of the cheque was marked as Ex.P.5. The legal notice issued to the accused was marked as Ex.P.6 and its postal receipts and return cover were marked as Ex.P.7 & Ex.P.8. The reply notice issued by the accused was marked as Ex.P.10. The Manager of Indian Co-operative Society, Mr.Palani was examined as P.W.2 to support his case. He has also examined the Manager, Karur Vaisya Bank, wherein the accused hold the account as P.W.3, to prove that the cheque has been dishonoured for insufficient funds. Therefore, the appellant's counsel submitted that the appellant has proved his case beyond any reaso....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....09.2002. It is also curious to note that the accused admitted his liability to the tune of Rs. 92,909/- and due to business loss he is not in a position to return the same. Therefore, he also sent a letter Ex.D.1 to prove his contention. As such, the accused did not issue any cheque to repay the part of amount as alleged by the complainant. 9. It is seen from the records that only after the receipt of the letter Ex.D.1 issued by the accused, the complainant presented the cheque which was issued at the time of borrowing the loan as security purpose. Therefore, it is evident that the alleged cheque was not issued for any legal enforceable debt by the accused. That apart, even according to the complainant a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- was borrowe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with the bank; (v) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within 15 days of the receipt of information by him from that bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; (vi) the drawer of such cheque fails to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice; 11. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held in the judgment reported in (2008) 4 SCC 54 Krishna Janardhan Bhat V. Dattatraya G.Hegde in paragraph Nos.34,35 and 44 which ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rights and the interest of the society is required to be taken in to consideration. In India, however, subject to the statutory interdicts, the said principle forms the basis of criminal jurisprudence. For the aforementioned purpose the nature of the offence, seriousness as also gravity there of may be taken into consideration. The courts must be on guard to see that merely on the application of presumption as contemplated under Sectopm139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the same may not lead to injustice or mistaken conviction. It is for the aforementioned reasons that we have taken into consideration the decisions operating in the field where the difficult of proving a negative has been emphasised. It is not suggested that at negative ....