TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (7) TMI 697
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ional Sessions Judge has reversed the verdict of Conviction and acquitted the respondent/accused. As against the Order of acquittal, the Complainant has preferred this Appeal. 2. Facts which led to the present Appeal could briefly be stated thus : Case of complainant is that the accused is bound to pay ₹ 4,65,000/- to the complainant, for which the accused had issued a Cheque bearing No. CQ 132675 dated 155-1993 drawn on the Karur Vysya Bank Limited, Arani. The accused requested the complainant to present the cheque after four months. Accordingly, the complainant presented the cheque for collection through his banker Lakshmi Vilas Bank Limited on 1111-1993. The cheque was returned with endorsement "Insufficiency of Funds".....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nant's plea that the Accused had executed nine promissory notes, learned Additional Sessions Judge held that Ex. P. 1 cheque was taken by the Complainant/financier only as a guarantee. After referring to the provisions of Section 138 N.I. Act and the nature of presumption to be raised under Section 138 N.I. Act, the lower appellate Court found that in the absence of any proof of Debt or legally enforceable liability, no criminal intention could be attributed to the accused and on those findings allowed the Appeal in C.A. No. 54 of 1996, setting aside the Conviction of the Respondent/Accused. 5. Aggrieved over the order of acquittal by the lower appellate Court, the complainant/Sri Murugan Financier has preferred this appeal. Learned co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was bound to pay ₹ 3,50,000/- to the Complainant. On 15-5-1993, the accused is said to have borrowed a further sum of Rs, 50,000/- from the complainant. Calculating the earlier amount due, interest and the amount payable, the accused is said to have issued Ex. P-l-cheque in question for a sum of ₹ 4,65,000/-. Case of the accused is that he had borrowed only ₹ 50,000/- on 15-5-1993 and for proper return of the said loan, the Cheque in question was issued by him. The accused also has denied execution of the promissory notes as alleged by the complainant. Inasmuch as huge amount of ₹ 4,65,000/- is involved case of the complainant is that an amount of ₹ 3,50,000/- was due from the accused prior to 15-5-1993. If th....