AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (8) TMI 1296
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3, dated 15.11.2006. 2. This Appeal is filed against the Judgment of acquittal of the respondents by the Appellate Court. The private complainant is the appellant herein. 3. The private complainant/appellant herein has preferred the complaint under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, which was taken on file in C.C.No.375 of 2013. Originally, C.C. No. 375 of 2003 was instituted against five accused. The fifth accused in the complaint was M/s. Shanthi Textiles private limted. On receipt of summons, the fifth accused filed Crl.OP No. 25699 of 2003 before this Court to quash the private complaint against them and it was allowed by this Court on 29.09.2003 in Crl.O.P.No.25699 of 2003. Therefore, the trial in the private complain....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tnership firm and A-2 to A-4 are the Partners of the said firm. (e) One Shanti Mills Pvt., Ltd., (A-5 in the complaint) had business transactions with the complainant company by purchasing various types of yarns and as on 3rd October 2002, a sum of Rs. 27,41,015/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Lakhs Forty One Thousand and Fifteen only) was outstanding amount payable by A-5. (f) M/s.Anu Yarns (A-1) a sister concern of M/s. Shanti Mills Pvt., Ltd., (A-5) issued three cheques in order to discharge the liability of A-5. The cheque details are as follows: Cheque No. Date Sum (i) 423585 16.09.2002 8,88,669/- (ii) 423856 20.09.2002 8,28,120/- (iii) 423857 25.09.2002 8,26,513/- (g) All....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3 dated 29.09.2003 filed by the fifth accused in the complaint, the Sessions Court concluded that as per the said order dated 29.09.2003, there is no connection between the fifth accused in the complaint and the cheques in question. Further, the complainant has not filed any appeal as against the order dated 29.09.2003 passed in Crl.OP No. 25699 of 2003. The appellate Court also, on perusal of the evidence of PW1 concluded that PW1 himself has stated that there is no nexus or connection between the complainant and the respondents 1 to 4. Further, the Trial Court had taken pains to compare the signature of the fourth accused with the signature contained in Ex.P17 without providing opportunity to compare and prove the signature in a manner kn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nts / accused is that the accused company had no business transactions with the complainant company. It is their case that one Guruswamy, shareholder of the Chamber of Cotton Textiles is the broker for supply of yarn to the fifth accused company and Ex.P3 clearly indicates the supply of yarn made through the said broker only. It was also admitted by PW1 that the said broker has filed criminal complaint for cheating pertaining to the business transaction mentioned in the complaint. PW1 also admits that the criminal complaint is pending. In the cross-examination, PW1 admits that the complainant company has recovered from the broker various properties including cash, however, he denied the same during cross-examination. Therefore, a Petition i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t at an initial stage, but it was dismissed by the trial court. Furthermore, with regard to the proof of evidence of signature in Ex.P17, is not reliable, because, the signature of fourth accused is specifically denied and furthermore Ex.P17 was marked after closing of the complainant side evidence and by recalling PW1 after one year that too without any whisper anything in the earlier pleadings assumes significance. Further, there is no whisper about Ex.P17 in the legal notice, complaint or in the earlier part of examination of PW1. In fact PW1 was specifically confronted with regard to the availability of any letter or any document evidencing the issuance of cheque in question issued by the first accused for and on behalf of the fifth acc....