TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 921X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esent the cases. Though PW1 might not be the Manager at the time of the transaction, he would have got appointed subsequently. In the Firms/Companies, the employees would change from time to time, but the institution remains. Just because there is a change in the person who hold the post of Manager, it cannot be stated that the present Manager is not the authorised person to represent the authorised Firm - Neither the appellant-Firm nor PW1 has disputed about the power given to him to represent the Firm. In this background of facts, it cannot be claimed that the respondent/accused had discharged his reverse burden and refuted the initial presumption that has been drawn in favour of the appellant. The learned counsel for the respondent/accused submitted that PW1 himself has admitted that in the month of April 2009, a sum of ₹ 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 - In the evidence of PW1 he has stated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e witnesses have been examined as PW1 to PW3 and 9 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P9. When the incriminating materials surfaced from the evidence of the complainant was put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C, he denied the same. On the side of the defence no witness was examined and no document was marked. 5. At the conclusion of trial and on considering the evidence on record, the learned trial Judge found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act and convicted and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for One Year and also imposed a fine of ₹ 5,000/- in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for One Month. A compensation of ₹ 4,24,560/-, which is equivalent to the cheque amount was also awarded. The accused challenged the judgment of the trial Court and preferred an appeal before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur in C.A.No.53 of 2013. The learned Principal Sessions Judge had allowed the appeal on 19.03.2014 by reversing the judgment of the trial Court. Aggrieved over that the complainant has preferred the present appeal. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 ₹ 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.P2 has been delivered to him. In the cases filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, the complainant has to produce prima facie proof to show the genuineness of the transaction. It is not obligatory on the part of the complainant to produce the evidence akin to the claim for recovery of money in a civil suit filed before a civil Court. 10. Ex.P2-invoice would show that the accused has purchased yarns for a sum of ₹ 4,24,560/- on 16.04.2009. It is alleged by the appellant that the impugned cheque was given to them on 30.05.2009. Eventhough the cheque was not credited i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Under such circumstances, it goes without saying that the respondent/accused is liable to pay the sale price. Since it is not unusual to make payments by way of issuing cheques, the impugned cheque is used by the appellant towards realising the invoice amount by putting it for collection. As per Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the bearer of the cheque is at liberty to fill up the details of the cheque, if a person signs and delivers a negotiable instrument. In that case, the person so signed the cheque shall be liable for the amount mentioned in the cheque. 14. It is neither the contention of the respondent/accused that he had issued the cheque to someone else other than the appellant. It is seen from the judgment of the learned Appellate Judge that he got misguided about two purchase transactions made to the tune of ₹ 1,72,620/- and ₹ 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 ₹ 5,74,260/- instead of ₹ 5,97,186/-, the learned Appellate Judge raised a suspicion about the impugned transactions. If ₹ 22,969/- which has been de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
