TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 991X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en that fact has not been proved by the appellant and simplified in order to make the cause of action and also the limitation and he has stated that when the first time returned, since the respondent requested the appellant to present the cheque once again hence he has not sent the notice and once again, he represented the cheque. Appeal dismissed. - Criminal Appeal No.196 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 23-8-2018 - Mr. P. Velmurugan J. For the Appellant : M/s. K. V. Sridharan For the Mr. R. Ezhilarasan JUDGMENT This appeal arises against the the judgment in C.A.No.8 of 2010 by the learned Additional District Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Salem, reversing the judgment passed in S.T.C.No.297 of 2008 dated 23.12.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 2008. Hence, the complaint. 3. During the trial, in order to prove the case of the appellant examined himself as PW.1. The Clerk of Karur Vysya Bank, Karipatty Branch by name C.Vimal Raj had been examined as PW.2. The Manager of Karur Vysya Bank, Karipatti Branch had been examined as PW.3. PW.1 has marked the original cheque for ₹ 75,000/- as Ex.P1. The bankers memo is marked as Ex.P2 copy of the Advocate's notice marked as Ex.P3; Account statement of appellant's bank account is marked as Ex.P4; Postal acknowledgement card is marked as Ex.P5. On appreciation of materials before it, trial Court, under judgment dated 23.12.2009, convicted the respondent for the offence u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 00/- and the respondent agreed for the same. The respondent paid a sum of ₹ 40,000/- under Ex.D1. That apart, he paid a sum of ₹ 40,000/- under Ex.D1. That apart he paid a sum of ₹ 10,000/- to the uncle of the Suresh Kumar, the lorry owner herein by depositing the said amount into the bank account of the said Mahendran and he paid a sum of ₹ 4,80,000/- to Sureshkumar by arranging it through a private finance. There was still a balance of ₹ 35,000/- outstanding and payable from out of the sale price for which Sureshkumar insisted upon the respondent for the issuance of cheques. They obtained three cheques vide numbers 750461, 750462 and 750463 from the respondent. That apart they also obtained blank pronotes sig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the respondent received a sum of ₹ 75,000/- from the appellant and issued the cheque and the respondent approached him personally and requested to present the cheque once again therefore the second time, presented the cheque dated 16.01 2008. Even that fact has not been proved by the appellant and simplified in order to make the cause of action and also the limitation and he has stated that when the first time returned, since the respondent requested the appellant to present the cheque once again hence he has not sent the notice and once again, he represented the cheque. The first appellate Court clearly appreciated the evidence placed before it rightly come to the conclusion that appellant has not proved his case. 6. This Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
