TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (10) TMI 1025
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is Court on 27.09.2021 directed the Registry to convert the Criminal Revisions as Criminal Appeals. Accordingly, they are converted into Crl. A.(MD) Nos. 403 to 406 of 2021. 2. Since the issue involved and the parties in all these criminal appeals are one and the same, all these criminal appeals have been taken up for hearing together and disposed of by virtue of this common judgment. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court. 4. Before the trial Court, the complainant filed four private complaints against the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in C.C. Nos. 21, 12, 281 and 498 of 2006. By judgment dated 15.04.2008, the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Karur, found the accused guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in all the cases, convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. 5. Challenging the same, the accused preferred appeals in C.A. Nos. 24, 23, 25 and 26 of 2008 before the Court of Sessions, Kar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Similarly, in C.C. Nos. 12 and 21 of 2006, on the side of the complainant, 9 documents were exhibited as Exs. P.1 to P.9 and on the side of the accused, one document was marked as Ex. D.1. In C.C. No. 498 of 2006, on the side of the complainant, 6 documents were exhibited as Exs. P.1 to P.6 and on the side of the accused, one document was marked as Ex. D.1. (iv) The common evidence given by P.W. 1 is that, in view of the transactions, which had happened between himself and the accused for the period from 12.03.2005 to 01.08.2005, the accused is liable to pay the principal sum of Rs. 3,02,572.10 to him. In order to discharge the said liability, the accused issued 8 cheques and when at the time the same were presented for collection, all the cheques were returned with an endorsement as "Insufficient Funds". Thereafter, within 15 days from the date of return, he sent a statutory notice to the accused through his Advocate regarding bouncing of cheques, demanding payment from the accused. After receipt of the said notice, the accused has neither replied nor repaid the amount to the complainant. Hence, the complainant presented private complaints against the accused under Section 138....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... perusing the materials on record, the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Karur, came to the conclusion that the accused is guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, to undergo six months simple imprisonment in all the cases. 11. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the accused preferred appeals before the Sessions Court, Karur. The learned Sessions Judge, Karur, by judgment dated 17.09.2010, allowed the said appeals and set aside the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court. 12. Aggrieved over the said findings, the complainant is before this Court with these Criminal Appeals. 13. I have heard Mr. V. Ragavachari, learned counsel appearing for the complainant and Mr. N. Shanmugaselvam, learned counsel appearing for the accused. 14. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant would contend that during the relevant point of time, only after receiving the finished goods, in order to discharge his liability, the accused issued 8 cheques in question. In otherwise, if the goods sent to J.J.M. Company, Chennai, were returned, necessar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 19. It is another thing that the accused has not disputed the signature found in the cheques in dispute. Therefore, being the reason that the signatures found in the cheques were admitted by the accused, the statutory presumption comes into play. At this juncture, it would be relevant to see the judgment of our Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rangappa vs. Sri Mohan reported in 2010 (4) CTC 118, wherein our Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "since the accused did admit that the signature on the cheque was his, the statutory presumption comes into play". 20. Further, in the case of M.M.T.C. Limited and another vs. Medchl Chemicals and Pharma (P) Limited reported in 2001 (4) CTC 749 (SC): 2002 (1) SCC 234, our Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "the authority shows that even when the cheque is dishonoured by reason of stop payment instruction, by virtue of Section 139 the Court has to presume that the cheque was received by the holder for the discharge in whole or in part, of any debt or liability." 21. Accordingly, in view of the above settled legal position, it should be presumed that being the reason that the signatures found in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the case of T.P. Murugan (Dead) Through Legal Representatives vs. Bojan reported in 2018 (8) SCC 469, wherein our Hon'ble Apex Court has held as, rebuttable presumption must be by adducing credible evidence. Therefore, only in the circumstance, after seeing the accounts maintained by the accused and after seeing the rejection orders given by J.J.M. Company, Chennai, this Court comes to the conclusion that due to belated delivery of the goods, the accused alone incurred loss and therefore, the cheques issued by him are not for discharging his liability. 25. In this occasion, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant, after withholding the documents, which are necessary to substantiate his claim, mere the oral evidence given by the accused cannot be accepted. In this aspect, the first appellate Court without understanding the onus of proof, came to the conclusion that the non-production of accounts by the complainant is fatal to the complainant's case and set aside the conviction and sentence. The accused during the time of giving evidence, he himself admitted that he is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 3,02,572.10, but in respect of the said evid....