TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 2332
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Nos. 1657 and 1658 of 2008. That after issuance of notice, Special Leave Petitions were heard finally. Leave granted. (1.1) These Appeals arise out of two complaints filed Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ("the N.I. Act") filed by the Appellants against the Respondent for dishonour of two cheques of Rs. 37,00,000/- and Rs. 14,00,000/- respectively. 2. The facts of the case briefly stated are as under: (2.1) The Appellants submit that they were inducted in Maanihada Tea Produce Company Pvt. Ltd. being run by the Respondent to infuse capital by way of deposits and shares. (2.2) On 24.11.1998, the Appellants resigned as Directors of the Company after which the Respondent and his son, DW-3, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....missory Note was not issued in favour of the Appellant-complainants. The Promissory Note was filled up by DW. 2 Mahesh, an employee of N.R.R. Investments, after the signatures of the Respondent were obtained on the same. With respect to the two cheques which were dishonoured, the Respondent contended that these were amongst 10 blank cheques signed and handed over to the Appellant-K. Posa Nandhi as security, when he borrowed Rs. 5,00,000/- in 1995. That even though this loan was re-paid in 1996 with interest, the cheques were not returned. The Respondent further contended that he had issued a letter on 09.11.2002 asking the Appellants to return the 10 blank cheques. 3. The Trial Court found that the Respondent had admitted his si....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to how the Pronote came into possession of the Appellant. Furthermore, the Sessions Court discarded the evidence adduced by the Accused, of DW. 2 Mahesh, as being an interested witness, who had falsely stated that he was an employee of N.R.R. Finances. This was rebutted by two witnesses viz. PW. 2 and PW. 4, who were Directors of N.R.R. Finances who deposed that DW. 2 was never employed by this Company. The District and Sessions Court affirmed the conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court. 5. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 26.11.2008 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. III, Coimbatore, the Respondent-Accused filed two Criminal Revision Nos. 1657-1658 of 2008 before the Madras High Court. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nal Revision Nos. 1657-1658 of 2008, the Appellant-complainants filed the present Special Leave Petitions. Mrs. V. Mohana, Sr. Adv. represented the Appellants, and submitted that the Respondent-Accused has admitted his signatures on the two dishonoured cheques and on the Pronote. The Appellants-complainants had adduced sufficient evidence to prove their case. Reliance was placed by the Senior Counsel on the decisions of this Court in Rangappa v. Shrimohan (2010) 11 SCC 441, K.N. Beena v. Muniyappan and Anr. (2001)8 SCC 458; and T. Vasanthakumar v. Vijayakumari (2015)8 SCC 378 in support of her case. 7. Mr. R. Basanth, Sr. Counsel appeared on behalf of the Respondent-Accused, and contended inter alia that the cheques were not issued ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ave sufficient funds in his account. The letter dated 09.11.2002 was an after-thought, and was written to evade liability. This defence also lacked credibility, as the Appellants had never asked for return of the alleged cheques for seven years. (iv) The defence of the Respondent that the Pronote dated 07.08.2002 signed by him, was allegedly filled by one Mahesh-DW. 2, an employee of N.R.R. Finances, was rejected as being false. DW. 2 himself admitted in his cross-examination, that he did not file any document to prove that he was employed in N.R.R. Finances. On the contrary, the Appellants-complainants produced PW. 2 and PW. 4, Directors of N.R.R. Finances Investment Pvt. Ltd., and PW. 3, a Member of N.R.R. Chit funds, who deposed....