TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 1076X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the accused. As noticed hereinbefore, despite the specific case that the accused used to purchase goods from the complainant on credit basis and possession of documents revealing such transaction the complainant had not produced any such documents, is the specific finding of the trial court. The appellant did not have a case that he had produced any such documents. It was considering all such relevant aspects that the trial court found that the appellant had failed to discharge the onus to get the benefit of the presumption available under Section 139 of the N.I. Act. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the considered view that the appellant had failed to make out a prima facie case warranting any interference with the order of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and for part payment of the price of goods purchased he issued Ext.P1 cheque dated 10.5.2005 drawn on Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd., Ponnurunni Branch for 30,312/-. When Ext.P1 cheque ₹ was presented for encashment it was dishonoured owing to the reason `account closed'. The appellant issued Ext.P3 lawyer notice dated 21.5.2005 intimating him of the dishonour of the cheque and also calling upon him to pay the amount due. Despite the receipt of Ext.P3 notice the accused did not respond to the same or paid the amount within the statutorily permissible time. In fact, it was with such allegations that the complaint was filed. On due process, the accused/first respondent appeared before the court. The particulars of the offence were read o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ic case of the appellant herein was that the accused/first respondent used to purchase the goods on credit basis from `Tripunithura Cement Centre' and it was in part payment of the price of goods purchased from there that Ext.P1 cheque was issued. In such circumstances, I do not find any infirmity in the conclusion arrived at by the court below that for a successful prosecution of the first respondent the appellant should have established that he is the proprietor of `Tripunithura Cement Centre'. The appellant failed to adduce any evidence to show that he was its proprietor during the relevant period. Section 142 of the N.I. Act provides that no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e at the finding that the appellant had failed to prove that Ext.P1 cheque was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt and that the appellant had failed to prove the execution of the cheque. Evidently, the first respondent/accused has denied the execution of a cheque for discharging any legally enforceable debt in favour of the appellant. During the cross examination PW1 deposed that Ext.P1 was produced before him after writing and putting signature, thereon. At the same time, he would state that he was not familiar with the signature of the accused. It was taking into account such circumstances that the trial court arrived at the conclusion that PW1 had not witnessed the execution of Ext.P1 by the accused. As noticed hereinbefore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
