2019 (3) TMI 1209

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., by judgment dated 19.01.2010. 2.The respondent / private complainant has filed a private complaint before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Orathanadu, Thanjavur District in S.T.C.No.429 of 2008 against the revision petitioner / accused, alleging that the petitioner / accused has borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Twenty Five Thousand Only) from the respondent / complainant, promising to repay the loan within six months, but instead of repayment, he issued the cheque Ex.P.1, which was dishonored on presentation for collection and hence, the respondent / private complainant has issued statutory notice on 28.07.2008 and on receipt of which, the accused has sent a reply notice with false allegations a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....se his suggestive case, as stated supra, has examined himself as D.W.1 and also examined one Kamalanathan as D.W.2 and marked Exs.D.1 to D.25. 5.On consideration of the oral evidence of P.W.1 and the documentary evidence of Exs.P.1 to P.8, it is seen that the cheque in issue viz., Ex.P.1 has issued from the account of the accused herein and the signature in the cheque is admitted by the accused. Accordingly, this Court finds that the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act would arise in favour of the respondent / private complainant. Thus, it is now for the revision petitioner / accused to rebut such presumption. 6.As stated supra, it is the specific case of the accused that he never borrowed any amount, wh....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Thakkaly. However, after perusing Ex.D.4, there is nothing on record or in the evidence to show that Ex.D.4 was used only by the revision petitioner to travel from Kuzhithalai to Thanjavur. Therefore, an inference that the accused / revision petitioner has used the train ticket to go to Kuzhithalai and returned back to Thanjavur on 11.01.2008 cannot be drawn. Similar finding arrived at by the Courts below on similar reasoning being well founded and well merited does not warrant any interference by this Court. Accordingly, this contention of the revision petitioner stands negatived. 10.The next contention raised by the revision petitioner is based upon Ex.D.18 and Ex.D.19, which are all copies of visa, said to have been issued to one Rav....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tioner and the signature in the cheque is admitted and there was no cross-examination on this point, calling upon P.W.1 to explain his source of income or his sufficiency to issue a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- and hence, as the plea was raised only at the appellate stage and the said plea was never confronted with P.W.1, the trial Court has rightly rejected the said contention and the said finding of the Lower Appellate Court in rejecting the said contention as the same was not confronted with P.W.1, does not call for any interference at this stage. 13.Thus, this Court finds that the private complainant by his oral evidence in P.W.1 coupled with the documentary evidence of Exs.P.1 to P.8 and taking into account the fact that the accused has no....