TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (11) TMI 1116
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... learned Judicial Magistrate, FTC, Hosur. 2. The complainant in S.T.C. No. 224 of 2013 is the appellant herein. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court. 4. The appellant herein has filed the above S.T.C. No. 224 of 2013 on the strength of Ex.P1 (cheque) dated 08.05.2013 for a sum of Rs. 31,42,980/-and the cheque was returned. Thereafter, the appellant has preferred to issue notice under Ex.P.2 and also issued legal notice under Ex.P.3 and after the acknowledgement, he has filed the complaint. After formalities, the respondent/accused entered appearance. 5. During trial, the complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and Manager of the Bank was examined as P.W.2 and Ex.P.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....same in the market and collects the money and has failed to remit payment to the appellant. The respondent purchased materials from the appellant under various invoices (Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10). Towards discharge of the said liability, the respondent issued a cheque bearing No. 274147 dated 08.05.2013 in favour of the appellant for a sum of Rs. 31,42,980/-. The appellant had presented the cheque with its banker for collection on 13.05.2013. To its shock and surprise the same was returned as 'drawer signature differs'. Therefore, the appellant issued a legal notice to the respondent dated 07.06.2013 calling upon him to make the payment on the above cheque within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. 10. It is seen from Ex.P.3....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tinued conducting business with the appellant. Per contra, he took the defence that he issued the cheque for security purpose. This was not believed by the trial Court as well as the lower Appellate Court. 13. On a close perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, I find that the respondent did not refuse the case of the appellant in his chief examination and he took defence stating that the case was filed with other ulterior motive to deny payment of sales commission which was allegedly due to him. 14. On close scrutiny of D.W.1, the respondent has admitted in his cross-examination that the appellant company branch was operating in the respondent's premises. Further, he admits that all materials destined for Hosur were initiall....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rlier purchases but nothing pertaining to the transaction in question. 16(b). The respondent, in his cross-examination, has admitted that the purchase orders and other defence documents of the respondent did not contain any signatures, which was not credible enough to prove that the respondent has no liability with the appellant. The respondent has admitted in his cross examination, the modus operandi followed by Ex.P.5 to Ex.P.10 and Ex.P.18 to Ex.P.21 which are invoices and stock transfer challans. The said modus operandi is the same as shown by the respondent's exhibit marked as Ex.D.6. He further admits that the details (Address, TIN Numbers) mentioned in the invoices and forms belong to him. Hence, this Court finds that there is....