9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1296X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed against the Judgment of acquittal of the respondents by the Appellate Court. The private complainant is the appellant herein. 3. The private complainant/appellant herein has preferred the complaint under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, which was taken on file in C.C.No.375 of 2013. Originally, C.C. No. 375 of 2003 was instituted against five accused. The fifth accused in the complaint was M/s. Shanthi Textiles private limted. On receipt of summons, the fifth accused filed Crl.OP No. 25699 of 2003 before this Court to quash the private complaint against them and it was allowed by this Court on 29.09.2003 in Crl.O.P.No.25699 of 2003. Therefore, the trial in the private complaint proceeded against the four accused, who ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ti Mills Pvt., Ltd., (A-5 in the complaint) had business transactions with the complainant company by purchasing various types of yarns and as on 3rd October 2002, a sum of Rs. 27,41,015/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Lakhs Forty One Thousand and Fifteen only) was outstanding amount payable by A-5. (f) M/s.Anu Yarns (A-1) a sister concern of M/s. Shanti Mills Pvt., Ltd., (A-5) issued three cheques in order to discharge the liability of A-5. The cheque details are as follows: Cheque No. Date Sum (i) 423585 16.09.2002 8,88,669/- (ii) 423856 20.09.2002 8,28,120/- (iii) 423857 25.09.2002 8,26,513/- (g) All the above said three cheques when presented by the complainant were dishonoured on account of Funds Insufficient vide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3, there is no connection between the fifth accused in the complaint and the cheques in question. Further, the complainant has not filed any appeal as against the order dated 29.09.2003 passed in Crl.OP No. 25699 of 2003. The appellate Court also, on perusal of the evidence of PW1 concluded that PW1 himself has stated that there is no nexus or connection between the complainant and the respondents 1 to 4. Further, the Trial Court had taken pains to compare the signature of the fourth accused with the signature contained in Ex.P17 without providing opportunity to compare and prove the signature in a manner known to law. Accordingly, the Appellate Court allowed the appeal filed by the respondents herein. 9. The learned counsel for the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... holder of the Chamber of Cotton Textiles is the broker for supply of yarn to the fifth accused company and Ex.P3 clearly indicates the supply of yarn made through the said broker only. It was also admitted by PW1 that the said broker has filed criminal complaint for cheating pertaining to the business transaction mentioned in the complaint. PW1 also admits that the criminal complaint is pending. In the cross-examination, PW1 admits that the complainant company has recovered from the broker various properties including cash, however, he denied the same during cross-examination. Therefore, a Petition in CMP No. 5209 of 2006 was filed by the respondents/accused under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. to sent for the acknowledgment of recovery of the valua ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liable, because, the signature of fourth accused is specifically denied and furthermore Ex.P17 was marked after closing of the complainant side evidence and by recalling PW1 after one year that too without any whisper anything in the earlier pleadings assumes significance. Further, there is no whisper about Ex.P17 in the legal notice, complaint or in the earlier part of examination of PW1. In fact PW1 was specifically confronted with regard to the availability of any letter or any document evidencing the issuance of cheque in question issued by the first accused for and on behalf of the fifth accused, but PW1 denied the same. However, it appears, after completion of examination of witness on the side of the complainant, the defendants side ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Such a finding rendered by the first Appellate Court is well considered and does not any warrant to interference at this appellate stage. 16. After perusing the deposition of PW1 in the first instance and answer elicited in the cross examination and also in the further examination in Chief, after recall and Ex.P17, this Court is of the considered view that the first appellate Court is right in entertaining a suspicion with respect to the coming into existence of Ex.P17, which has not been whispered at the earlier point of time but only at the conclusion of the Trial Court. Thus, taking into consideration of Ex.P17, the first Appellate Court has rightly held that there is no proper explanation with respect to liability between the A1 and A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
