9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 921X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4,24,566/- on credit basis from the complainant, towards discharging the above amount, the respondent has issued a cheque dated 30.05.2009 for a sum of Rs. 4,24,560/-; when the cheque was presented for collection on 31.08.2009 with his bank Central Bank of India, Tiruppur Branch and the same was returned for "Insufficient Funds"; subsequently, he sent a legal notice to the respondent by demanding the cheque amount and the same was received by the accused, but he did not send any reply; neither he paid the cheque amount; after complying all the legal mandates, the appellant has filed the complaint against the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonor of cheque. 3. After the case was take ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the entire materials available on record. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant had proved his case by producing the invoice through which the respondent has purchased yarns and the statement of account to show the impugned transaction; the respondent did not deny his signature in the impugned cheque and hence, he is entitled to the initial presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act; however, the commercial tax deducted for the purchases made by the respondent from the appellant for the month of April 2009 has also been marked as Ex.X1 by examining an officer from the Commercial Tax Department as PW2; despite the trial Judge has properly apprec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Appellate Court to reverse the judgment of the trial Court and find the accused not guilty for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 9. The fundamental facts that the appellant and respondent are known to each other and they had business transaction between themselves cannot be denied. From the evidence of PW2/Commercial Tax official, it is seen that a sum of Rs. 22,969/- has been deducted as Value Added Tax as against the purchases made by the respondent/accused for the month of April 2009. The respondent/accused has contended that the said amount has been paid by the appellant by knowing the secret number assigned to the accused and hence on the footing of Ex.X1, it cannot be proved that the goods involved in Ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has submitted that during the business transactions the parties used to give blank cheques by way of security and the impugned cheque was also given only in that context. It is further submitted that the appellant/complainant had misused the same by filling it according to his wishes and filed the case. 12. It may be true that during the business transactions the blank cheques would be issued by the parties as security. In the case on hand there is an invoice dated 16.04.2009 to the purchase transaction to the tune of Rs. 4,24,566/- towards purchase of yarns by the respondent/accused. At that time or even before purchasing the goods, it would have been possible for the respondent/accused to give a blank cheque as security. But, once the g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat he got misguided about two purchase transactions made to the tune of Rs. 1,72,620/- and Rs. 4,24,566/- respectively. Since the total amount arrived in Ex.X1 for the purchases made by the respondent for the month of April 2009 has been entered as Rs. 5,74,260/- instead of Rs. 5,97,186/-, the learned Appellate Judge raised a suspicion about the impugned transactions. If Rs. 22,969/- which has been deducted towards Value Added Tax is added to Rs. 5,74,260/-, it would show that there is no discrepancy in arriving at the right figure i.e., Rs. 5,97,186/-. The learned Trial Judge had omitted to take the Value Added Tax also as part of the invoice and misled himself. It is further submitted by the counsel for the respondent/accused that the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sel for the respondent/accused submitted that PW1 himself has admitted that in the month of April 2009, a sum of Rs. 4,80,216/- has been paid by the respondent and hence he has the right to get that sum deducted from his dues. It is to be noted that the respondent/accused never claimed that he had made partial repayment towards the impugned purchase made vide Ex.P2-invoice, but he denied his very liability towards Ex.P2 purchase. It is seen in Ex.P3, account of the accused that on 21.04.2009 vide cheque no.038400 a sum of Rs. 3,07,596/- has been paid and credited and on 27.06.2009 vide cheque no.038476 Rs. 1,72,620/- has been paid and credited. If these two amounts are added, it would come to Rs. 4,80,216/-. In the evidence of PW1 he has st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
