TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (11) TMI 506
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....istrate [Fast Track Court at Magesterial Level], Thanjavur that the complainant and the father of the accused were friends. On 16.08.2010, the petitioner/ accused borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,05,000/- as loan from the complainant and in order to discharge the loan, he issued a cheque bearing Registration No.000004 dated 16.09.2020 drawn in Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Chennai Adayar Branch. When the complainant presented the cheque for collection on 16.09.2010, it was returned with an endorsement as 'account closed' under a memo dated 27.09.2010 [ExP2 and 3]. Therefore, the complainant issued a statutory notice on 13.10.2010 [ExP4] to the petitioner/accused insisting him to pay the cheque amount within fifteen days. However, the notice w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er is residing nearby the complainant, he has not made any demand in person. The complainant himself has admitted that the money transaction was between himself and the father of the petitioner [DW2]. Moreover, the complainant has not proved the existing liability or debt by the petitioner to the complainant at the time of filing of the complaint. 6.Heard Mr.N.Tamilmani, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Venkatesh, learned Counsel for the respondent. 7.The learned Counsel for the petitioner mainly relied on the evidence of DW1 and DW2 and submitted that there is no legally enforceable debt and the cheques of the petitioner/accused have been forcibly taken away by one Meena Pandi, for which, complainant was also lodged and the ch....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unt closed'. The respondent issued statutory notice dated 13.10.2010 and the same was returned unserved as 'unclaimed' and hence, the complaint was filed. 12.Since the issuance of cheque [ExP1] is admitted, the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is attracted. To discharge the presumption, the petitioner / accused has examined himself as DW1 and examined his father as DW2. ExR1 to ExR19 were also marked before the Court, to rebut the presumption. 13.The case of the petitioner/accused is that the account in Kotak Mahindra Bank was maintained at Adayar Branch as a salary account, when he was working in a Call Centre at Chennai and the said account was closed a long ago. The petitioner/accused neither ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....all these points, the contention of the petitioner/accused was rightly rejected the Courts below. 15.Though the petitioner has attempted to rebut the presumption, he was not successful in rebutting the presumption and as pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondent/complainant that the service of notice is sufficient in this case. 16.At this stage, the learned Counsel for the petitioner / accused submitted that this petitioner / accused is the only bread winner of his family and therefore, prayed for modification of the sentence. 17.In the result, the criminal revision case is partly allowed. The conviction rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate [Fast Track Court at Magestrial Level], Thanvur in S.T.C.No.23 of 2012 is confi....