TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 1094
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 2.It is the case of the Revision Petitioner that previously he acted as a power of attorney of the original complainant namely R.Bommi, who is the mother of the Respondent herein namely S. Prabhadevi. 3.The Revision Petitioner was entrusted as the power of attorney by said R.Bommi such that authorizing to sell her house property situated in Ramapuram in Chennai. Revision Petitioner was appointed as General Power of Attorney by a registered dated 18.07.2018 on the file of Joint Sub-Registrar Office, Saidapet. 4.In pursuant to the above GPA, the revision Petitioner acted in good faith and sold the house property for sale consideration at Rs. 13,50,000/- (Rupees Thirteen lakhs and fifty thous....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ents Act and he was sentenced to three months simple imprisonment with the direction to pay compensation of Rs. 13,00,000/- (Rupees Thirteen lakhs only) to the complainant. Aggrieved over the same the Revision Petitioner filed an appeal in C.A.No.70 of 2013 on the file of the learned District and Sessions Court, Thiruvallur. Misfortunately, the appeal came to be dismissed by an order dated 13.08.2013, which is under challenge in this criminal revision. 7.I heard Mr.T.Munirathinam Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.Rathanavel, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the entire materials available on record. 8.It is seen from the records that the case of the complainant before the Trial Court is that the petitioner he....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rupees Seven Lakhs only) and consequently the cheque previously issued for a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs only) was returned back to the revision petitioner. In the meantime, complainant found that her property was sold at a higher rate than that of the amount informed by the revision petitioner quoting Rs. 13,50,000/- (Rupees Thirteen lakhs and fifty thousand only). Whereupon the complainant obtained certified copy of the sale deed dated 16.10.2008 and 03.04.2009 by which the petitioner house property and the land attached to it was sold by the revision petitioner acting as complainant's power agent. 12.It was shocking to see that the face value of the property was quoted and stood reflected as Rs. 33,11,000/- (Rupees Thirty ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at on the side of accused there was no exhibits marked and no witnesses were examined. 16.In the said factual background, the trail court by holding that the revision petitioner had failed to rebut the presumption under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, thereby held the revision petitioner guilty of an offence under Negotiable Instruments Act. On appeal the appellate court also concurred with the decision of the trial court. 17.In the said factual matrix all that has to be looked by this Court in this appeal is as to whether the revision petitioner had successfully rebutted the initial burden rest on him to establish that there is no legally enforceable debt or any other liability for which the cheques were issued. 18.Further th....