TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 289X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cution of the cheque by the respondent herein is not disputed and clear in view of the legal notice (Ex. P3) issued by the respondent herein just prior to the due date of the cheque - The trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the private complainant is entitled for presumption under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the respondent having failed to rebut the presumption has laid the conviction. On perusal of Ex. P1 has categorically stated that their pre-existing legally enforceable debt against the accused for the said amount of ₹ 2,30,400/- Ex. P2 was issued and hence in the absence of any suggestive case being probabilized by the respondent, the lower Appellate Court has wrongly construed and allowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of food products marketing in the name and style 'R.R. Foods'. The respondent's husband supplied goods to the appellant upon payment of advance deposit and accordingly the appellant had paid an advance deposit of ₹ 2,40,300/- (Rupees Two Lakh Forty Thousand and Three Hundred only) to the respondent's husband (arrayed as second accused in the complaint). Since production of the food products were stopped by the respondent's husband, he became liable for refund of the advance deposit and hence under a covering letter dated 08.02.2005 (Ex. P1), the respondent had handed over a postdated cheque (Ex. P2) for the sum of ₹ 2,40,300/- toward discharge of the liability of her husband, M. Ramkumar. Thereafter, just p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of evidence so recorded, the trial Court reached the conclusion that the respondent and Mr. M. Ramkumar are guilty of the offence charged and hence convicted and sentenced the respondent and M. Ramkumar to suffer 6 months simple imprisonment and a fine of ₹ 5,000/-, in default has to undergo further simple imprisonment of three months. 9. The respondent/accused No. 1 along with his husband M. Ramkumar who has arrayed as accused before the trial Court preferred in C.A. No. 138/2010 and by an order dated 10.11.2014, the learned XVI Additional Sessions Judge has allowed the appeal in entirety and hence the appeal by the complainant. 10. Heard both sides. 11. The sole point i.e., arises for consideration in this appeal is that; w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted above. 16. For the sake of clarity, at the risk of repetition in the cheque amount Ex. P2 was issued by Ex. A1 in her personal capacity and therefore he is not a mandate holder his signature in Ex. P2 was admitted. 17. Once the drawer admits the signature of the cheque, it is presumed that the drawer had given the cheque for discharging a legally enforceable debt or liability. The drawer is given an option to rebut the statutory presumption by adducing positive evidence in the form of proof. 18. The respondent was admitted a signatory in the covering letter (Ex. P1) issued along with her postdated cheque (Ex. P2). The signature and execution of the cheque by the respondent herein is not disputed and clear in view of the legal n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
