9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 328X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t has convicted the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to undergo six months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment. Aggrieved against the same, the accused has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2014, before the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Coimbatore. By an order dated 04.08.2015, the learned Judge has dismissed the same and hence, the Criminal Revision Case. 3.Heard both the learned counsels and perused the materials placed on record. 4.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused would contend that the relationship between the parties is landlord and tenant and in such relationship, the rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /- each on 2011.2007 and 17.06.2010 towards interest for the amount borrowed on 02.03.2005. In fact, on the side of the complainant one Subramanian was examined as PW2. It is his evidence that he stood as a witness for the borrowal by the accused on all the three occasions and that the accused executed pronotes on the said dates. He has also stated during his evidence that he had witnesses the execution of pronotes besides signing them as a witness. He has also categorically stated that the accused paid Rs. 7,500/- on 17.06.2010 towards interest for the amount borrowed under the first pronote dated 02.03.2005. He has also confirmed that he signed as a witness for the endorsement made in the first pronote on 17.06.2010 regarding the payment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herein/accused to rebut the said presumption. 11.Thereafter, to rebut the presumption, on the side of the revision petitioner herein/accused, she examined herself was examined as DW1, one Nirmala was examined as DW2, one P.Maharajan was examined as DW3, one Sairam Prasad was examined as DW4. In the documentary evidence viz., Exs.P1, P2 & P3, at one place the name of the revision petitioner herein/accused was mentioned as Marriammal instead of Marriamma. 12.According to the defence, the complainant and the accused were landlord and tenant. In order to avail loan, the complainant had asked the accused to be a surety for the loan to be obtained by the complainant and for that purpose the Bank account was opened by the complainant in the name ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt can not be interfered with. 15.Yet another contention is that there is another complaint in CC.No.13 of 2013 wherein, non mentioning of the legal notice was sought to be projected as a fraud. Non mentioning of other legal proceedings in the subsequent legal proceedings are fatal to the case of the prosecution. Further, no suggestion was put to PW1 during the cross examination and hence, I find that it is only an after though at the revision stage. 16.Further, Mr.Saranraj, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that in the first legal notice dated 02.09.2011, namely, the subject matter of the present revision nothing is mentioned about the transaction as stated in the second legal notice, dated 16.11.2011. Based upon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
