TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (9) TMI 841
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default to undergo further period of 2 months simple imprisonment. 2. Aggrieved over the said conviction, the accused prepared an Appeal [in Crl.A.No.301 of 2006] before the learned V Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, wherein he reversed the verdict of conviction and acquitted the respondents/accused. As against the order of acquittal dated 24.10.2009, the complainant has preferred the present Appeal. 3. The facts leading to the present Appeal may be stated briefly: The appellant [complainant] is a partnership firm carrying on the business in Galvanized Steel Tubes, Pipes, Pipe Fittings and other allied products. On behalf of the first accused firm [first r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is judgment. 6. After elaborate enquiry, on 24.10.2009, the learned V Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of conviction. Against which, now the appellant being the complainant in the trial Court approached this Court for setting aside the judgment passed by the learned V Additional Sessions Court, Chennai and for restoring the order of conviction passed by the learned XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai. 7. When the appeal is taken up for consideration, I have heard the arguments of Mr.J.Jaseem Mohammed, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr.P.V.Sanjeev, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and also perused the records carefully. 8. The learned counsel appea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al alteration alleged by the respondents, during the time of giving evidence, P.W.1 has stated in his evidence that he presented the cheque after 5½ months from the date of issue. In otherwise, it was contended on the side of the respondents that the year mentioned by the respondents was altered as 2000 instead of 1999. Further, it is the case of the respondents, if the said date was altered definitely it is necessary to obtain the signature of drawer near to the correction. But in this case, there is no signature obtained from the drawer. In the said situation, during the time when the drawer of the cheque was examined as D.W.3, he has stated that the cheque now under dispute was handed over to the appellant's company on 16.06.1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the evidence given by the D.W.2 is a crucial evidence, which changes the entire case of the appellant. In order to dispute the evidence given by D.W.2, on the side of the appellant, no supporting document was produced to substantiate the claim made by him. Accordingly, the First Appellate Court arrived at the conclusion that the Ex.P.1 cheque was materially altered is found correct. 16. Secondly, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that in the trial Court in order to prove the liability of the respondents, as many as 11 documents were exhibited on the side of the complainant. Without considering the said documents, the First Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the cheque pertaining to this case has not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s is of course in the nature of a rebuttable presumption and it is open to the accused to raise a defence wherein the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability can be contested. However, there can be no doubt that there is an initial presumption which favours the complainant." 27. ....... 28. In the absence of compelling justifications, reverse onus clauses usually impose an evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden. Keeping this in view, it is a settled position that when an accused has to rebut the presumption under Section 139, the standard of proof for doing so is that of 'preponderance of probabilities'. Therefore, if the accused is able to raise a probable defence which creates doubts about th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Holiday is also create a doubt, whether the transaction as stated by the appellant had happened or not. Further, at the time of filing the complaint, before the trial Court, the appellant did not enclose the copy of invoice to show his bonafide. However, only during the time of trial, he produced the invoice. 22. Apart from that during the time of cross-examination, P.W.1 has specifically stated as he did not know the date on which the material was supplied to the respondents, he has stated that for supplying the materials to the respondents, registers and bills were maintained, but those documents have not been exhibited before the trial Court. Further, he has stated that on 12.08.2000, the materials worth about Rs. 2,04,200/- were sen....