2018 (9) TMI 44

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r appellant, peruse the records and dispose of the appeal on merits and in accordance with law. 2. Appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 09.04.2010 passed in Criminal Appeal No.25109/2009 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-III, Mayohall, Bengaluru. 3. Criminal Appeal No.25109/2009 filed by accused T.Panner Chelvan came to be allowed on 09.04.2010 consequently Judgment dated 28.08.2009 passed in C.C.No.31756/2008 by the V Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes and 24th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayohall, Bengaluru, was set aside. By virtue of allowing of the appeal, the accused came to be acquitted. Said criminal case was registered for the offence punishable under Section....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....earned V Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes and 24th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, allowed the complaint and found the accused guilty for the commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The operative portion of the said order is as under: ORDER Acting under Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C. I convict the accused for the offence punishable u/s.138 of N.I. Act. Accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and is directed to pay fine of Rs. 1,75,000/- out of which an amount of Rs. 1,70,000/- shall be paid to complainant as compensation and an amount of Rs. 5,000/- shall be deposited to the State as fine. If the accused fails to pay fine amou....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is oral evidence. In the circumstances, the only occasion where he communicated about what he believed regarding complaint is during cross examination of the complainant. In this connection learned trial Judge has noticed that the defence was not taken by earliest opportunity and the defence is that the cheque did not connect to the accused and he was not holding the account mentioned therein. 9. There are no circumstances or materials to hold against the complainant. 10. Learned trial Judge has observed in her Judgment that accused failed to raise his objection and place defence regarding mysterious circumstances of cheque belonging to some other person, signed by the accused. Learned trial Judge has compared the signature of the accused....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d by accused. 14. Even if the claim was put forward by the accused in the beginning it would have not improved his case in the context and circumstance of the case. Accused has issued the cheque belonging to another person invariably other account of accused, signed it. Apart from the presumptions regarding holder considering be it under Section 118 or Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, when the representation is made by issuing cheque and by signing on it, there will not be occasion to doubt as to whether it is mentioned on the cheque that account belongs to another person. If the account did not belong to accused his conduct is he signed it without having intention to honour it and that in respect of legally recoverable debt ....