Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2020 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 1352 - MADRAS HIGH COURTDishonor of Cheque - discharge of burden to prove - Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - HELD THAT:- It is trite that while exercising revisional jurisdiction in a case involving concurrent findings of fact arrived at by two Courts below, the High Court cannot act as a second appellate Court. It may be pertinent to point out that the cheque in this case, viz., Ex.P1 is dated 03.05.2010 and it has been signed by Thangaraju (A2) in his capacity as the partner of M/s.Bright Spinners (A1). Whereas, the cheque (Ex.D5), for which Rajendran has initiated a separate prosecution, is dated 04.05.2010 and it has been signed by Devasenathipathy (A3) in his capacity as the partner of M/s.Bright Spinners (A1). Apart from the fact that both Sampathkumar and Rajendran have approached two different lawyers of the same chamber, there is no other satisfactory material to infer that the cheque was issued as security for the supply of yarns - it is not the case of the accused that the complainant used to take blank cheques as security for the yarns supplied by him. It is seen that the impugned cheque in this case is dated 03.05.2010 and it was presented by the complainant only on 22.10.2010. Had the accused given the impugned cheque as security for purchasing yarns and the complainant not supplied the yarns, the accused would have issued directions to their Bank to stop payment, but, that has not been done in this case. Though the accused can discharge the burden under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by preponderance of probability, even that has not been done in this case. Criminal Revision is dismissed.
|