TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 1471X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r insolvency before the Subordinate Court, Erode; Ravi had handed over the impugned Cheque (Ex.P1) of the Accused to the Complainant for filing a prosecution and realizing the amount - Both the Courts below have rightly disbelieved this Defence, because, the Accused, except suggesting his Defence in the cross-examination of the Complainant, did not place any material to support it. Though the Accused can discharge the burden under Section 139 of the NI Act by preponderance of probability as held by the Supreme Court in RANGAPPA VERSUS SRI MOHAN [ 2010 (5) TMI 391 - SUPREME COURT ], even that has not been done in this case. The Trial Court is directed to secure the Accused and commit him to prison to serve out the remaining period of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . No. 276 of 2007 before the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Erode, for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for brevity the NI Act ), against the Accused. 4. Before the Trial Court, the Complainant examined himself as PW1 and marked six Exhibits. 5. When the Accused was questioned under Section 313, Cr.P.C. on the incrimination circumstances appearing against him, he denied the same and did not come forward to give explanation as to how his Cheque (Ex.P1) came into the hands of the Complainant. On behalf of the Accused, no Witness was examined nor any Document marked. 6. After considering the evidence on record and hearing either side, the Trial Court, by Judgment and Order, dated 17.1.2013 in C.C. N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hand, the Complainant, in his evidence, has stated about the Hand Loan taken by the Accused, issuance of the impugned Cheque (Ex.P1), its presentation and dishonour, issuance of the Statutory Demand Notice (Ex.P4) and the failure of the Accused to comply with the demand. 12. In the cross-examination of the Complainant, the Accused had taken a Defence that the Complainant had given a loan to one Ravi and was not able to realise it, because, the said Ravi had filed a Petition for insolvency before the Subordinate Court, Erode; Ravi had handed over the impugned Cheque (Ex.P1) of the Accused to the Complainant for filing a prosecution and realizing the amount. 13. Both the Courts below have rightly disbelieved this Defence, because, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
