9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 505X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egotiable Instruments Act. 3.The case of the complainant is that the cheques for a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- were issued by the revision petitioner herein for the discharge of his debt, but on presentation of those three cheques for Rs. 5,00,000/- each, got bounced for insufficiency of funds. After complying the statutory requirements and issuing notice, private compliant was lodged and tried by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Tuticorin in C.C.No.113 of 2015. 4.After examining the complainant as P.W.1 and marking six exhibits on his behalf and examining Sub Inspector of Police, Central Police Station as defence witness (D.W.1) and five exhibits on behalf of defence, the trial Court has found that the subject cheques were i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. The Courts below have not given due consideration for the defence evidence. 7.Point for consideration is whether the Courts below have failed in appreciation of the evidence and whether there is any illegality or impropriety in the judgement of the Courts below. 8.A perusal of the records and the evidence of P.W.1, the complainant, indicates that the revision petitioner and the complainant are friends. For business transaction the revision petitioner used to borrow loan. In one such occasion for trade requirement, complainant lent a sum of the Rs. 15,00,000/- to the accused/petitioner. He borrowed money from one of his friends by name Kennedy. The accused/petitioner to discharge the loan gave three cheques for Rs. 5,00,000/- each and p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not fatal to this case. Since the complainant has substantially proved his source of money and the revision petitioner has not disputed the signature, except to plead that the cheques were stolen/lost. As recorded earlier, the said defence of lost cheques, is only an after thought. If it is really true, he should have first of G.JAYACHANDRAN, J. cp all replied to the statutory notice or at least he should have co-operate to the police for investigation in respect of his complaint, which has been marked as Ex.D.1. The revision petitioner has not done neither of the two. 10.In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds no merit in the revision petition and accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. The c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
