TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 463
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al before the learned XV Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai (lower appellate Court) in C.A.No.9 of 2017. The lower appellate Court, by judgment, dated 11.08.2017 set aside the judgment of the trial Court, dated 09.08.2016 in C.C.No.11901 of 2009 and convicted the petitioner for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentenced to undergo six months Simple Imprisonment and to pay a sum of Rs.1,13,500/- towards compensation to the respondent, in default, to undergo three months Simple Imprisonment. As against the judgment of conviction and sentence, the present Criminal Revision has been filed by the petitioner/accused. 2.The gist of the case is that the respondent engaged in the business of Satellite Televisi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mined as PW1 during trial, who was employed under the respondent. Though initially PW1 stated that he was aware about the transaction between the petitioner and the respondent and entire facts of the case, later he admitted that he is not aware about what is the time of slots and who is the person hired slots and the person who participated in the programme and its details. He further submitted that PW1 is unable to produce any document pertaining to the transaction took place between the petitioner and the respondent. PW1 categorically stated that it is one Ravi, the Director of the respondent company, who would be aware of all the particulars and the transaction. Despite the same, the respondent failed to examine the said Ravi as witness ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nstruments Act, is a rebuttal one. In this case, by cross examination of the respondent, the petitioner disputed the liability and gave explanation for handing the cheque, which was given earlier as security for some other programme. It is for the respondent to adduce evidence to prove that the cheque (Ex.P2) was issued by the petitioner in discharge of subsisting liability. Further, the lower appellate Court failed to consider that the cross examination of PW1 was not completed, since PW1 failed to appear for further cross examination and also failed to give explanation and adduce evidence. Hence, he prayed for setting aside the judgment of the lower appellate Court and confirming the judgment of the trial Court. 6.The learned counse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s unable to give any answer with regard to issuance of cheque (Ex.P2), dishonour of the cheque, issuance of statutory notice (Ex.P5). PW1 not able to give details of transaction. On the other hand, he categorically confirmed that it is only Ravi, Director of the respondent company, would be the right person to give answer for the cheque and its liability. But, in this case, the said Ravi not examined as witness by the respondent company. 9.It is not necessary, in each case, the accused has to get into the box under Section 315 Cr.P.C., and give explanation. From the available materials and by way of cross examination, the accused is only to probablize his defence and disprove his liability. In this case, the petitioner had rebutted by ra....