TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1235X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lleged by him. Further, the statutory notice Ex.P.4 was admittedly returned without serving on the accused. It is seen from the notice that the amount mentioned as 2,50,000/-, whereas the total cheque amount is 3,50,000/-. That apart, the said notice was returned for the reason no proper address, no door number and no street name . Therefore, the statutory notice was not at all sent to the proper address. This Court is of the considered opinion that the complainant did not fulfil the requirements under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, the trial Court after considering the entire evidence and facts and circumstances of the case, has rightly acquitted the accused and the judgment passed by the the Judicial Magistrate N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ex.P.8. After closure of the evidence on both sides, the incriminating evidence as against the accused, were put to him for questioning under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused denied the same as false however, in order to prove his case, he did not examine any witness and mark any documents. The trial Court after considering the evidence and materials available on record, acquitted the accused for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant. 4. The learned Magistrate acquitted the accused for the reasons that the accused is stranger to the complainant, and there was no need for him to borrow any amount. Further, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny documents for the borrowal of ₹ 3,50,000/- is not at all possible from any person. In his cross examination, P.W.1 has categorically admitted that except the cheques, no other documents were obtained at the time of alleged borrowal of loan. It is also to be noted that admittedly at the time of borrowal itself, the cheques were obtained by the complainant. Therefore, he prayed for confirmation of the order passed by the learned Magistrate. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant Mr.R.Marudhachalamoorthy and the counsel for the respondent Mr.P.Kavirinaden and perused the materials available on record as well as the judgment passed by the trial Court. 8. The case of the complainant is that the respondent borrowed money on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yam Sons Company and admittedly he did not examine any partners of the said Company to prove their relationship between the accused as his witness. Further, he admitted that he does not know about the relationship between the accused and the said Company. The specific case of the complainant is that the accused is no way connected with the cheques Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 and he cheated him. The case of the accused is that he never issued any cheques and he had no legal enforceable debt to issue cheques in favour of the complainant. Therefore, once the accused rebutted the presumption under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, the complainant is liable to prove his case. The complainant failed to prove his case. Since, the cheques were ret ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
