TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 987X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mplainant through a relative and the present prosecution has been filed. The accused has not stated the date on which his daughter tore the cheque leaves. The reply notice in this case (Ex.P5) was issued by the accused on 18.07.2006. Since the accused knew that he had given a torn but glued cheque leaf to the complainant towards the loan availed by him, he took a specious defence in the reply notice (Ex.P5) that his child had torn the cheque leaves and such a torn cheque leaf had gone into the hands of the complainant. There is a ring of truth in the testimony of the complainant (P.W.1) inasmuch as he has clearly stated that, he was anxious to get back his money from the accused and that the accused gave him a torn cheque saying that he (ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bank, Mannargudi Branch, where, he (complainant) was maintaining his account, and it was returned unpaid with the endorsement funds insufficient vide Bank return memo (Ex.P2); the complainant issued a statutory demand notice dated 05.07.2006 (Ex.P3) to the accused, for which, the accused issued a reply notice dated 18.07.2006 (Ex.P5), repudiating the debt; therefore, the complainant initiated a prosecution in C.C.No.319 of 2006 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.I, Mannargudi, for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, against the accused. 4.The complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P1 to P5. 5.When the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on the incriminating circumsta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Others, etc. (2004) 7 SCC 659]. Very recently, in Bir Singh vs. Mukesh Kumar [(2019) 4 SCC 197], the Supreme Court has held as under: 17.As held by this Court in Southern Sales Services v. Sauermilch Design and Handels GmbH [Southern Sales Services v. Sauermilch Design and Handels GmbH, (2008) 14 SCC 457] , it is a well-established principle of law that the Revisional Court will not interfere even if a wrong order is passed by a court having jurisdiction, in the absence of a jurisdictional error. .... (emphasis supplied) 11.Mr.Swami Subramanian, learned counsel for the accused, submitted that the accused has discharged the burden under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by examining himself as a defence w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... P1) bears the date 30.03.2006. It was presented by the complainant on 29.06.2006. It was not dishonoured on the ground that the signature varies or the instrument is mutilated, but on the ground of insufficiency of funds. 16.In the cross-examination, the complainant (P.W.1) has clearly stated that, when he started demanding money, the accused gave him the impugned cheque (Ex.P1) and told him that, though the cheque leaf has been stuck with a cellotape, he (accused) will ensure that the same is cleared, if it is presented two months later. Believing the representation and somehow wanting to get back his money, the complainant accepted the cheque (Ex.P1) and presented it only on 29.06.2006 as stated above. 17.The accused (D.W.3), in h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mination of the signatures of the accused available in the Court records under Section 73 of the Evidence Act and has observed that the accused is in the habit of signing differently at different places. 19.Both the Courts have disbelieved the defence taken by the accused that his small daughter had torn some cheque leaves and one of such torn cheque leaves had gone into the hands of the complainant through a relative and the present prosecution has been filed. The accused has not stated the date on which his daughter tore the cheque leaves. The reply notice in this case (Ex.P5) was issued by the accused on 18.07.2006. Since the accused knew that he had given a torn but glued cheque leaf to the complainant towards the loan availed by hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
