TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (9) TMI 865
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Bodinayakanur. The respondent is the complainant in the said case. The respondent filed the said case alleging that the petitioner has committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Bodinayakanur, by judgment dated 19.01.2015, convicted the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. 3. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed an appeal in C.A. No. 4 of 2014 before the Principal District and Sessions Court, The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e respondent was examined as P.W.1 and as many as five documents were exhibited. Ex. P.1 is the copy of the cheque, dated 01.11.2007. Ex. P.2 is the Memo issued by the State Bank of India, Bodinayakanur, dated 03.11.2007. Ex. P.3 is the copy of the legal notice, dated 16.11.2007, issued to the petitioner. Ex. P.4 is the acknowledgment in respect of receipt of Ex. P.3. Ex. P.5 is the reply notice sent by the petitioner's counsel to the respondent's counsel. 6. When the above incriminating materials were put to the petitioner/accused, he denied the same as false. On behalf of the petitioner, he himself was examined as D.W.1, wherein he has stated that for the loan availed by himself and his wife, number of persons have given tortures....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Bank for not honouring the cheque leaves bearing Sl. Nos. 660281 to 660300 and 662241 to 662260. In the reply notice sent by the revision petitioner to the respondent, there was no denial that the signature found in the cheque is not his signature. The entire averments narrated in Ex. P.5 reply notice would go to show that the alleged cheque has been issued to one Radhakrishnan and not to the respondent. 9. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and also perused the materials available on record carefully. 10. In order to hold the accused guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, it is mandatory that the complainant should prove that the cheque in question was issued as against the legally enforcea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from and out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is closed to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provision of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may be extended to two years, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e debt. In respect of the presentation of the cheque, P.W.1 had given evidence as the cheque was presented on 02.11.2007 and thereafter, on 03.11.2007 the same was returned with an endorsement as ''Account closed''. Hence, statutory notice has been issued to the respondent on 16.11.2007 and the same was returned as could be evidenced from the return cover and postal receipt. The said circumstances reveal the fact that by following the ingredients of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the case has been presented before the trial Court for initiating action against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 12. It is possible to infer that Radhakrishnan would have engineered the complainan....