TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (6) TMI 704
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....V Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, Vide order dated 09.11.2023. Aggrieved by the said order, the present criminal revision case filed before this Court. 2. According to the petitioner, the said Mrs.D.Kuzhalamani is due to the petitioner a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- for which she issued a cheque drawn in favour of the petitioner on Punjab National Bank, Kilpauk, Chennai, dated 20.11.2020. Thereafter, the petitioner took steps to proceed against her. On coming to know about the same, the said Mrs.D.Kuzhalamani transferred the amount to the petitioner through RTGS and this amount of Rs.20,00,000/- has been projected as the amount liable to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent complainant. Though this fact was not elicit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and no explanation is given in this regard. He would further submit that the petitioner retired from Income Tax Department, having sufficient amount and there is no necessary for him to borrow money from the respondent. It is not disputed by the respondent that the cheque drawn in Punjab National Bank for Rs.20,00,000/- is with the petitioner and no explanation how the cheque reached the petitioner's hand. The Trial Court took the complaint on file on 23.08.2022 and disposed the case by judgment dated 16.05.2023 within a period of seven months in a haste not giving sufficient opportunity for the petitioner to cross examine the respondent/complainant. Further, the respondent/complainant by Ex.P9 admits transaction between the petitioner ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e learned counsel submitted that power to take additional evidence under Section 391 Cr.P.C., is with an object to appropriately decide the appeal by the Appellate Court to secure ends of justice. The Lower Appellate Court in the impugned order admits that the mother of the respondent, namely, Mrs.D.Kuzhalamani by RTGS transferred Rs.20,00,000/- to the petitioner and records the cheque for Rs.20,00,000/- drawn in Punjab National Bank bearing Cheque No.169684 dated 20.11.2020 presented for encashment got dishonoured for the reason, drawers signature differs. On accepting the same, the defence of the petitioner is based on the transaction with the said Mrs.D.Kuzhalamani and reason for the cheque to be considered, that can be done only by exam....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o know about the respondent's mother ill-health, to protract and cause harassment to the respondent and his mother filed the above petition. If the petitioner is sincere in defending his case, the petitioner ought to have participated in the trial cross examined the respondent at the given opportunity, failing to do so and now filing this petition is only to protract the proceedings. He would further submit that the petitioner has not come up with clean hands and the Lower Appellate Court by giving justifiable reasons dismissed the petition which needs no interference. 8. Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the materials, it is seen that the petitioner's specific claim is that the respondent's mother issued a che....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., statutory presumption against the accused has to be dislodged by way of materials and cross examination. In the present case, the case is at the appellate stage and hence, Section 391 Cr.P.C. had been invoked by the petitioner. In the case of Rambhau vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2001) 4 SCC 759, the power under Section 391 Cr.P.C. had been elaborated and the Apex Court held that there are no fetters on the power under Section 391 Cr.P.C. of the Appellate Court and the ultimate object of judicial administrative is to secure ends of justice, the Court exists for rendering justice to the people. The Apex Court further held that additional evidence must be necessary not because it would be impossible to pronounce judgment but because....