2020 (2) TMI 1581

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nk, Perundurai Branch. When the cheque was presented for collection, it was returned with an endorsement "Opening Balance Insufficient". It is also alleged that the statutory notice dated 11.06.2010 was served on the petitioner/accused on 16.06.2010 demanding the due, but he neither paid back the money nor sent any reply. Hence, the respondent/complainant has no other option except to file the private complaint, which culminated in S.T.C. No. 572 of 2010 before the trial Court. 3. Before the trial Court, the complainant examined herself as P.W. 1 and marked Exs. P.1 to P.4 documents, while the revision petitioner/accused examined himself as D.W. 3, besides examining D.Ws. 1 and 2 and marking four documents as Exs. D.1 to D.4. 4. Upon ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 7. Heard the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the materials available on record. 8. A perusal of the records shows that the petitioner/accused raised the following defence: (i) The signature found in the subject cheque differs with his signature; (ii) the complainant has no source of income to lend such a huge amount; and (iii) the subject cheque was stolen by the complainant. 9. However, the Trial Court has held that the accused has not chosen to get expert opinion and merely alleged that his signature was forged and thus, he failed to discharge his burden of disproving the case of the complainant. It is also held that since there is no complaint given by the accused for the theft of cheque, ....