9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 926X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was acquitted and hence, this appeal. 3. The appellant/complainant has preferred a private complaint alleging that in connection with the sale of cotton at the instance of the first accused. The second accused issued a cheque for Rs. 1,00,000/-, dated 18.01.2003, HDFC Bank Limited, Trichy Road Branch, Coimbatore and on deposit, the same was returned as stop payment instructed by the respondent herein and after issuing the notice, he filed the private complaint. 4. The suggestive case of the respondent/accused is that the petition filed by the power of attorney is not maintainable. As such, the power of attorney appointed by the Managing Director of the complainant's company is not maintainable-in-law and there is no business transact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the said Company are in possession of the P.W.1. But, he is not produced the same and hence, the trial Court has drawn the adverse interference in view of admitted factum that their possession especially, in the light of the suggestive case as stated above. 6. Furthermore, even immediately, after the issuance of Ex.P4 legal notice, the respondent has issued a reply notice under Ex.B1 as early as on 10.02.2003 wherein similar fact as projected as a defense case has been duly reflected in the reply notice. However, neither in the complaint nor in the evidence of the P.W.1, the alleged reply of the respondent/accused has been reflected and trial Court has drawn the adverse interference on the attitude of the petitioner. Furthermore, taki ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns held that the power deed is not maintainable, in view of the defects in the power deed as noted above. Furthermore, it appears that Ex.P1 power deed is also executed only by the Managing Director and not by the other Directors and hence on both the grounds, the trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that Ex.P1 Power Deed is defective nature and prosecution launched against the respondent/accused is not maintainable. 8. The respondent/accused has clearly demonstrated his suggestive case that they are engaged only as a collection agent and the representative of the appellant herein gave a cheque for Rs. 1,00,100/- for the collection of Rs. 1,00,000/- for which, the accused has given a cheque for Rs. 1,00,000/- payable at Coimbator ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... produced before the trial Court and thus, I find that the nonproduction of the alleged document with regard to the alleged transaction, the trial Court is quite right in drawing adverse interference against the appellant and the same cannot be found fault with and thus on entirety of the circumstances, the suggestive case of the defendants as reflected under Ex.R1 issued as early as on 10.02.2013, immediately after the legal notice under Ex.P5, dated 4.2.2003 and non-production of documents relating to the alleged business transaction, non-production of documents receipts and invoices regarding alleged transaction coupled with a fact that Ex.P1 Power Deed is found to be defective, consequently make the appellant case more improbable and unb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
