TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (11) TMI 444
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in C.C. No. 3201 of 2012, dated 27.09.2012. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to complainant and the accused as per the rankings before the Trial Court. 4. The private complainant has filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, against the accused, for the dishonoured cheque to the tune of Rs. 13,44,976/- and the same is taken on file as C.C. No. 355 of 2006 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur and the learned Judge had transferred the said C.C. to the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court No. I, Egmore, Chennai and renumbered as C.C. No. 3201 of 2012. 5. After the Trial, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ers as well fail to repay the said advance amount. Finally gave the following four cheques: (i) Cheque bearing No. 614377, dated 14.02.2006 drawn on Canara Bank, Park Town Branch for a sum of Rs. 81,130/- [Rupees Eighty One Thousand One Hundred and Thirty only] (ii) Cheque bearing No. 614379, dated 28.02.2006, drawn on Canara Bank, Park Town Branch for a sum of Rs. 5,13,994/- [Rupees Five Lakhs Thirteen Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety Four only] (iii) Cheque bearing No. 614380, dated 21.03.2006 drawn on Canara Bank, Park Town Branch for a sum of Rs. 1,02,220/- [Rupees One Lakh Two Thousand Two Hundred Twenty only] (iv) Cheque bearing No. 614381, dated 11.03.2006, drawn on Canara Bank, Park Town Branch for Rs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....transaction to one Siva Arasu and he had presented some of the cheques to this complainant. The issuance of the cheque and signature in the cheque are not disputed by the accused. The accused has arrayed as proprietary of the Sun Shine Trading Company. Though a point has been raised that he being the Letter of Authority cannot be prosecute in the business of the proprietary, this Court does not find any legal ground to sustain the same. 10. Further, the accused was duly represented as Proprietary of the Firm and he signed as a Letter of Authority, since he is a Proprietary of the Firm, the complaint is maintainable, in view of the settled position in connection with the Proprietary of the Firm. Since, the signature in Exs. P1 to P4/chequ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the proposed placement of orders with her. According to her, a sum of Rs. 81,130/- is due and payable under Sun Shine Trading Company and Rs. 5,13,994/- is payable under Macsun India, as the accused never procured any order. For discharge of the said liability, the accused had issued two cheques. She would further claim that cheque dated 21.03.2006 for a sum of Rs. 1,02,220/- and cheque dated 11.03.2006 for a sum of Rs. 6,47,632/- were issued to her towards interest on the said advance amounts. 14. Further, PW1 had admitted in her cross examination that she is the proprietor of "CPK Leathers". As the business transaction the accused has to owe a sum of Rs. 13,45,000/- to her firm and her husband C.P. Siva Arasu is responsible for her b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....been filed to show the period of interest and rate of interest and principle amount. In other words, in view of the answer elicited in the cross examination of the PW1, the suggestive case of the defence that he has not received any amount from the complainant, a cheque that was given to complainant has also probablise the suggestive case to the preponderance of probability level that passing of consideration is doubtful as claimed by PW1. 18. In view of the suggestive case being made probable by the accused, it is the duty of the private complainant to prove the existence of the legally enforceable debt. As stated supra neither the person responsible in business activity namely her husband viz., C.P. Siva Arasu, was examined before the ....