TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (9) TMI 593
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dergo three months simple imprisonment. 3.As against the conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court and the same was taken on file in Crl.A.No.61 of 2014 by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Special Court for Essential Commodities, Thanjavur and the appeal was dismissed by judgment dated 06.08.2015. 4.Aggrieved over same, the petitioner /accused preferred this Criminal Revision Case on the grounds that the trial Court and the appellate Court have not appreciated the evidence properly. 5.Pending this revision case, the first respondent / complainant died and therefore, on the petition filed by the legal heirs of the first respondent / complainant in Crl.M.P(MD) No.2487 of 2020, they were impleaded as respondents 2 to 5 on 12.03.2020. 6.Heard Mr.M.S.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.B.Anandan, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the available records. 7.The case of the complainant is that he was running a Steel and Cement Business at Thanjavur and he knew this petitioner / accused during the business transaction and this accused is an Engineer doing certain building works on contract b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on bearing Nos.588924 and 588925 were issued in the year 2005 and it is the specific case of the petitioner that those cheques, issued in the year 2005 were misused by the complainant to foist the complaint in the year 2012. 11.In support of his contentions, the learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of this Court in M.Sivakumar Vs S.Ravi, reported in 2018 (2) MWN (Cr) DCC 183 (Mad), wherein this Court has held as follows: "9.On the other hands, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the accused never known to the complainant and he never issued cheque to the complainant. Even though he signed the cheque, it was handed over to DW2 as Security purpose for the loan borrowed by him from the complainant. Further, the accused has no need to borrow any amount as alleged in the complaint and that too the said borrowal on 18.02.2005 and the alleged cheque was issued on the next date, i.e., 19.02.2005. It is unheard of namely immediately after the borrowal the cheque made. Therefore, the first appellate Court has rightly acquitted the accused and prayed for dismissal of the present appeal. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... fact that the complainant did not approach the court with clean hands. His conduct was not that of a prudent man. Why no instrument was executed although a huge sum of money was allegedly paid to the respondent was a relevant question which could be posed in the matter. It was open to the High Court to draw its own conclusion therein. Not only no document had been executed, even no interest had been charged. It would be absurd to form an opinion that despite knowing that the respondent even was not in a position to discharge his burden to pay instalments in respect of the prized amount, an advance would be made to him and that too even after institution of three civil suits. The amount advanced even did not carry any interest. If in a situation of this nature, the High Court has arrived at a finding that the respondent has discharged his burden of proof cast on him under Section 139 of the Act,no exception thereto can be taken." Mr.Bhat relied upon a decision of this Court in Hiten P.Dalal v. Bratindranath Banerjee [(2001) 6 SCC 16] wherein this Court held: "22. Presumptions are rules of evidence and do not conflict with the presumption of innocence,because by the latter, al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he complainant. As instructed by the petitioner the cheque was presented. Only after the dishonour of the cheque, a legal notice was also issued to the petitioner as contemplated under the Negotiable Instruments Act, on 04.04.2012. The petitioner also acknowledged the receipt of the same on 09.04.2012, but he has not made any reply within the statutory period as prescribed under the Act and therefore, the complaint was filed on 11.05.2012 before the trial Court. 14.According to the learned Counsel for the respondents, this reply notice has been conveniently made only on 08.06.2012, after filing of the complaint on 11.05.2012. Therefore, there is no reference about this reply notice in the complaint filed on 11.05.2012. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that even in the proof affidavit, the reply notice was not referred to is not correct. In the proof affidavit, the respondent/complainant has clearly mentioned that after filing of the complaint, a reply notice was also received by him from the petitioner and therefore, it cannot be a ground to entertain this revision case. 15.The learned Counsel for the respondents would further submit that an attempt has been made by ....