TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 865X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y one Radhakrishnan, in order to substantiate the same, no substantial evidence has been let in before the Courts below. Further, in the complaint lodged before the Superintendent of Police, Theni District, the respondent/complainant was not arrayed as a party. Further, in his cross-examination, D.W.1 had admitted that in respect of presentation of the cheque, there was no acknowledgement available with him. In the instant case, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent there was no denial on the side of the petitioner that the signature found in the cheque does not belong to him. Therefore, the respondent is entitled to invoke the presumption of Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that the cheq ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... firming the conviction and sentence imposed by the Courts below on the revision petitioner. - Crl. R.C. (MD) No. 553 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 7-9-2021 - R. Pongiappan, J. For the Appellant : C.B. Ramalingam For the Respondents : N. Vallinayagam ORDER R. Pongiappan, J. 1. This Criminal Revision has been filed seeking to set aside the conviction and sentence dated 16.12.2016, passed in Crl.A. No. 4 of 2015, on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Court, Theni, confirming the conviction and sentence dated 19.01.2015, passed in S.T.C. No. 97 of 2008, on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Bodinayakanur. 2. The petitioner is the accused in S.T.C. No. 97 of 2008, on the file of the D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nayakanur Branch as per the instruction and request of the petitioner and the same was returned unpaid as ''Account closed'' on 03.11.2007. When the respondent again approached and informed about the dishonour of cheque and asked for the payment, the petitioner never cared about it and has not answered properly. Hence, the respondent issued a legal notice on 16.11.2007 through his counsel to the petitioner to pay the amount to the respondent within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice. The legal notice was received on 17.11.2007 and after receipt of the said notice, the petitioner issued reply notice with false allegations. Hence, the complaint. 5. In order to prove his case, on the side of the respondent, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion was not at all issued to the respondent and as a matter of fact, it was obtained by one Radhakrishnan by coercion. He would further submit that it was not duly executed, which was given only as a blank cheque. The learned counsel would further submit that the notice issued to the bank was much prior to the issuance of cheque in question, dated 01.11.2007, which was presented for collection on 02.11.2007 itself. According to the learned counsel, the cheque pertains to this revision would not have been issued to the complainant at all as projected by him. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would stoutly oppose this revision. According to him, insofar as Ex. D.2 is concerned, it is only a copy of the letter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en before the Superintendent of Police, there is no averment to the effect that the said Radhakrishnan has obtained blank cheque in question by coercion and threat. More than that, in respect of the relationship between Radhakrishnan and the respondent, no evidence has been adduced on the side of the petitioner to show that the said Radhakrishnan has filed the present complaint in the name of the respondent. Therefore, it is quite clear that the evidence and exhibits produced on the side of the petitioner have not proved the fact that the cheque pertains to this revision has been issued only to the said Radhakrishnan. In the said circumstances, it is an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ithin fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice. 11. In the instant case, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent there was no denial on the side of the petitioner that the signature found in the cheque does not belong to him. Therefore, the respondent is entitled to invoke the presumption of Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that the cheque has been issued for discharging the legally subsisting liability, which is a rebuttable presumption. As already observed, the presumption has not been rebutted by the petitioner/accused. He has not probabilised his defence by preponderance of probabilities. Hence, in view of the same, this Court holds that the cheque has been issued for discharging ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
