9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 312X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vision came to the filed by the unsuccessful appellant/accused as against the judgment passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge dated 31.01.2010 in Criminal Appeal No.63 of 2009 confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode dated 08.08.2009 in C.C.No.707 of 2005. 4. The facts relevant to the present revision is as follows:- According to complainant, on 25.04.2003 the revision petitioner/accused had borrowed a sum of Rs. 5,50,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) from the respondent on 25.04.2003, for which he executed a demand promissory note and agreed to repay the same with interest at Rs. 1.50/- per Rs. 100/-. Inspite of repeated demands the revision petitioner/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... akh only) for which five cheques have been issued, out of which one cheque has been filled up and the present case came to be filed. Whereas, the cheque in question seems to have issued for Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four lakhs only). Once the signatory of the cheque did not dispute his signature found in the instrument then the presumption under Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act will come into play. As already stated the respondent/accused did not deny the signature found in the cheque in question. Therefore, both the Courts below have rightly came to a conclusion that the cheque in question was issued by the respondent/accused for Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four lakhs only) 7. Another contention of the revision petitioner/accused that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ightly contended by the learned counsel for respondent herein. 9. As already observed, the case of the respondent/complainant is that the revision petitioner/accused had issued the cheque in question only towards the partial payment of promissory note debt, which was clearly supported by oral and documentary evidence. The revision petitioner/accused has miserably failed to establish his case. 10. In view of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court has rightly pronounced the judgment of conviction and the same was affirmed by the appellate Court. 11. In view of the discussion in the presiding paragraphs, this Court finds that both the Courts below have rightly held that the respondent/private complainant is entitled for presumpt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
