TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 551X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be drawn and the accused has to rebut the presumption that there is no legally enforceable debt and cheque has not been issued for legally enforceable debt, whereas in the present case, the appellant/complainant has not established the execution of the cheque and borrowal of the money, by the respondent/accused. The appellate Court, as a fact finding Court, has rightly re-appreciated the evidence in proper perspective, under the circumstances, this Court does not find any perversity in the judgment of the appellate Court, and there is no compelled circumstances or reason to interfere with the Judgment of acquittal, unless any compelled circumstances or reason warranted, this Court cannot interfe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Judge, after hearing the appeal, allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and acquitted the respondent herein/accused of the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for which he was prosecuted before the Trial Court. 3. As against the judgment of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Court, Coimbatore, dated 29.03.2019 made in C.A.No.432 of 2018, the petitioner herein/complainant has chosen to prefer the present Appeal. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the respondent/accused has borrowed a sum of ₹ 90,000/- from the appellant/complainant on 27.01.2015 and in order to discharge the legally enforceable debt, issued a cheque bearing No.928921, drawn on Karur Vy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owed the Appeal and there is no merit in the Appeal. 6. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials placed on record. 7. The appellant, as a complainant, filed a private complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondent/accused. The case of the complainant is that the respondent/accused borrowed a sum of ₹ 90,000/- by executing the cheque and when the said cheque was presented for encashment, the same was returned. Subsequently, he sent a notice and filed a complaint. 8. A perusal of the entire records and even in the statutory notice sent by the complainant, the respondent/accused has sent the reply and he denied the execution of the cheque. It is to be noted that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
