TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 612X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not subject himself for examination, the improbabilities can also be explored from the evidence and materials of the complainant. The simple contention of the complainant is that he had lent the sum of ₹ 4,00,000/- to the petitioner for his business needs and he managed to arrange the money from the sale proceeds kept in the hands of his father. The complainant produced the copy of the sale deed dated 07.11.2002 and that would show that the property was sold on the said date for a valuable consideration. Prima facie proof is shown by the respondent/complainant to show that he had the background to lend a sum of ₹ 4,00,000/- to the petitioner/accused. The initial presumption coupled with the supporting evidence will strength ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clusion that the accused is guilty for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act - Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. - Crl.R.C.No.334 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 25-11-2021 - Honourable Ms.Justice R.N.Manjula For the Petitioner : Mr.C.Prabakaran For the Respondent : Mr.M.Kempraj ORDER This Criminal Revision Case has been preferred challenging the judgment of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Vellore, dated 28.01.2015 made in C.A.No.18 of 2015. 2. This case has arisen out of the dishonour of the cheque alleged to have been issued by the petitioner/accused in favour of the respondent/complainant for discharging a loan amount of ₹ 4,00,000/-. And for which, private complaint was f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the petitioner/accused, no witness was examined and no documents were marked. 4. After conclusion of trial and on consideration of the materials available on record, the learned Trial Judge found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, and convicted and sentenced him to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment and imposed a fine of ₹ 3,000/- in default, to undergo one month simple imprisonment. The cheque amount of ₹ 4,00,000/- issued was ordered to be paid as compensation to the respondent, in default, to pay compensation, the petitioner is ordered to undergo two months simple imprisonment. The said judgment was challenged by the petitioner/accused by preferring an appeal before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has stated to be residing in the very same address. The petitioner/accused wantonly returned the notice and that cannot be construed as non-compliance of notice sent under Section 138(b) of Negotiable Instruments Act. He further submitted that his father has sold a family property in the year 2002, and the sale proceeds were in the custody of his father's friend. Only when the petitioner approached him for financial assistance, he managed to get the amount through his father and gave it to the petitioner. 9. The respondent is known to the petitioner. The petitioner himself has stated that the respondent had worked as a Supervisor under him at the relevant point of time. So the parties are not strangers they knew each other. The peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cheques. Such an action has not been taken even after the filing of his complaint. Though it is correct that the rebuttal proof can be through preponderance of probability, the probability cannot be presumed from mere suggestion put by the accused during his cross examination, PW1. Even if the accused does not subject himself for examination, the improbabilities can also be explored from the evidence and materials of the complainant. The simple contention of the complainant is that he had lent the sum of ₹ 4,00,000/- to the petitioner for his business needs and he managed to arrange the money from the sale proceeds kept in the hands of his father. The complainant produced the copy of the sale deed dated 07.11.2002 and that would show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en to send the notice to the address known to him in which the accused was residing and the same address was shown as his address in this Criminal Revision Case also and that proves that the petitioner continues to live there but some how evaded to receive notice. 14. In such circumstances, the notice returned for the reason that addressee not found cannot be held against the respondent. Hence, I am not able to agree with the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused that the respondent has not complied the mandatory requirement contemplated under Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 15. The learned Trial Judge and the learned First Appellate Judge have correctly appreciated the materials on record in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
