2022 (1) TMI 501

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..../accused for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act in respect of dishonour of cheque bearing No. 024337 dated 12.09.2016 for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- drawn on Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Limited, towards repayment of the loan. When the said cheque was returned by the Manager of the Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Limited, he had issued a memorandum dated 17.09.2016 which was marked as Ex. P2 wherein the cheque number was mentioned as 024337. Based on the memorandum dated 17.09.2016, the respondent/complainant has mentioned the cheque number as 024337 in the legal notice dated 17.10.2016, which was marked as Ex. P3. The cheque number was given as 024337 in the complaint dated 16.11.2016 and also in the proof affidavit dated 15.12.2018. The Manage....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ndment cannot be allowed at the stage of trial. 4. The trial court relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in S.R. Kumar vs. Sunaad Raghuram, reported in (2015) 9 SCC 609, had allowed the petition against which, the present revision has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the number in the cheque is 054285 whereas the respondent/complainant had given a wrong number in the statutory notice and also in the complaint and in the proof affidavit filed by him. Later only when the Manager of the Bank was examined as D.W. 2 on behalf of the petitioner/accused, the discrepancy came to light and thereafter only he had filed petition seeking for amendment. Though in the case of S.R. Kumar vs. Sunaad Ragh....