2016 (8) TMI 1553

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ent revision petition. The complaint is filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Thiruchengode and the case was taken up on file in STC.No.161 of 2013, stating that the petitioner has borrowed a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- on 12.10.2012 and agreed to return the same within a period of three months and issued a cheque dated 12.01.2013 bearing Cheque No.118369. In the meanwhile, the accused requested the complainant to present the cheque by second week of February, the complainant presented the cheque for collection on 11.02.2013, the same was returned on 13.02.2013 with an endorsement "funds insufficient". Again the cheque was represented on 19.03.2013, the same was also returned f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....riginally, the cheque was issued to one Perumal for the purpose of getting financial help to settle the debts due to Tamil Nadu Industrial Corporation, the trial Court failed to consider this aspect and erroneously come to the conclusion. The complainant failed to examine one Perumal, the trial Court failed to look into the documents adduced on the side of the revision petitioner. The complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has to be dismissed. The trial Court failed to appreciate the blank cheque was signed by revision petitioner without any consideration and prays to set aside the judgments of the Courts below and allow the revision petition. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....inant cannot be accepted and the arguments of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner has to be rejected. 8. The further contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted, that PW1 in his cross examination admitted that he has no income and employment for more than 3½ years, hence, he has no source to lend money to the revision petitioner. PW1 deposed in the same cross examination that he already earned money and he has sufficient money available with him on that date to lend money to the revision petitioner is acceptable one and the said argument is also liable to be rejected. 9. Further, in this case, the accused/revision petitioner admitted the signature in the cheque, but failed to prove that ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cord slip it was stated that the cheque was issued to Perumal only on 30.09.2012, there are so much contradictions in the Exs.D4, D8 and D9, the revision petitioner has not explained about the above said contradiction to this Court. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of this Court reported in (2016) 1 MLJ (Crl) 552 - S.Balamani V. Vijayashanthi, the said authority cited on the side of the revision petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 13. The learned counsel for the respondent in support of his contention relied on the following judgments :- (i) 2015-2-LW 569 - M/s.Ajeet Seeds Ltd., V. K.Gopala Krishnaiah (ii) 2005 (4) CTC 30 - P.T.Thomas V. Thomas Job and (iii) (2015) 1 LW (Cr....