9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 987X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tively. 3.It is the case of the complainant that the accused had availed a hand loan of Rs. 60,000/- from him and towards the loan, the accused issued a cheque dated 30.03.2006 (Ex.P1) for the said amount, drawn on ICICI Bank, Mannargudi Branch; the complainant presented the said cheque for clearance on 29.06.2006 in the Indian Overseas 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 prosecuti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd Mr.G.Vinodh Kumar, learned counsel for the complainant. 10.It is trite that while exercising revisional jurisdiction in a case involving concurrent findings of fact arrived at by two Courts below, the High Court cannot act as a second appellate Court [See State of Maharashtra vs. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand and 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne stolen from the van after the accident, forged his signature, presented it for clearance, and on its dishonour, has initiated a vexatious prosecution. 15.This Court perused the impugned cheque (Ex.P1) and found that it is torn and cellophane tape has been used to hold it firm. The cheque (Ex.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 cell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent Card (Ex.P4), and his signature available in the Driving Licence. The documents were examined and a report was sent to the trial Court by the Forensic Science Department, which, for the reasons best known to the accused, was not marked. However, the trial Court has made a cursory examination 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 f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
