9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1162X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .07.2012 and No.049444 dated 21.07.2012 drawn at Tamil Nadu Merchandile Bank, Arupukottai Branch. When the said cheques were presented for collection, the same were returned for want of funds. Hence, he issued notices through his lawyer on 18.07.2012 and on 03.08.2012 intimating about the return of cheques, for want of funds and demanding the cheque amount. The said notices returned unserved. 3. To prove his case, the complainant has examined himself as P.W.1. The returned cheques, bank intimations, advocate notices, postal receipts, returned un-served covers were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. The accused examined himself as D.W.1. The Bank Manager was examined as D.W.2. One Ramasubbu, friend of D.W.1/accused examined as D.W.3. The trial Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... versed the findings of the trial Court. Hence, the Appellate Court judgment needs no interference. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the materials placed before this Court. 7. The complainant and the accused are known to each other for long time. The complainant is involved in real estate business. The accused, who wanted to establish the power loom, has borrowed money from the complainant. While the case of the complainant is that the subject cheques were issued towards the hand loan of Rs. 4,00,000/-(Rupees Four Lakhs only) and Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only). 8. The defense taken by the accused is that earlier, he mortgaged his ancestral property for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rceable debt and therefore, presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of Negotiable Instrument Act cannot be drawn against the appellant. 11. For the above said reasons, the Appellate Court has reversed the findings of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the said reversal findings, the present appeal is filed on the ground that Appellate Court has failed to consider the falsity of defense witness. The factum of issuing the cheques on 30.06.2012 not being disputed by the accused and the attempt to show that the subject cheque was obtained on the date of executing the mortgage deed being falsified despite examining of D.W.1 and D.W.3. The First Appellate Court has still dismissed the complaint by reversing the well considered judgment of the trial Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cused admits that he and the complainant had financial transactions with each other, he has already borrowed Rs. 2,00,000/- by mortgaging his ancestral property and he has issued the subject cheques to the complainant. He cannot travel beyond that to infer that no person will lend further when the earlier mortgage deed stand un-redeemed. Human behavior varies from person to person and based on various factors. In the cross examination, the complainant has clearly stated that, "Yes, I advanced further loan to the accused, since the property which he has mortgaged with me is worth more than Rs. 15,00,000/-". In the perception of the complainant, the property mortgaged as against the loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- being worth more than Rs. 15,00,000/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
