TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (6) TMI 369
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te, Fast Track Court-I at Magisterial Level, Coimbatore in C.C. No. 312 of 2014 (Old STC No. 185 of 2009) dated 25.04.2016. 2. The petitioner/accused was convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court-I at Magisterial Level, Coimbatore on the complaint filed by the first respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in C.C. No. 312 of 2014 by judgment dated 25.04.2016 and sentenced to undergo six months simple imprisonment and to pay the cheque amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- as compensation to the complainant/first respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in Crl.A. No. 72 of 2016. The learned Sessions Judge, by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unt Opening Form, Specimen Signature Card and Revised Signature Card of the petitioner were not available in the Bank. But he had produced the Specimen Signature Card with regard to the another account of the petitioner, which was marked as Ex. D4. 4. Both the Courts below failed to consider the evidence and materials, on the other hand, it was merely held that the signature as not been denied, hence statutory presumption under Section 139 gets attracted and accordingly the petitioner was convicted. The learned counsel for the petitioner further relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Basalingappa Vs. Mudibasappa, reported in (2019) 5 SCC 418, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court had summarized the principle....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and materials. In such circumstances, there is perversity in the judgment rendered by the Lower Appellate Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gamini Bala Koteswara Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2009) 10 SCC 636 had clearly held that the word "perverse" in terms as understood in law, has been defined to mean "against the weight of evidence". In this case, the evidence had not been properly considered. In view of the above decisions, the judgment of the Courts below may be interfered with by setting aside the same. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/complainant submitted that, in this case, the petitioner had not denied the signature in the cheque. The petitioner though admits that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....presumably for the purpose of satisfying itself that there was evidence in support of the finding of fact reached by the two subordinate Courts and that the finding of fact was not unreasonable or perverse. Further, this Court in Crl.R.C. No. 1096 of 2013 in the case of Sathish Kumar Vs. Vidhyasagar, reported in 2021(2) MWN (Cr.) DCC 11 (Mad.) had followed the said decision of the Apex Court. 7. Considering the submissions made on either side and on a perusal of the materials on record, it is not in dispute that the petitioner/accused had handed over the signed cheque/Ex. P2 to the first respondent. According to the petitioner during the year, 1995, the first respondent was running a chit business in the name of M/s. Praveenath Chits. Th....