TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 369X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hit Fund Pass Book. The first respondent/P.W. 1 admit that it is the usual practice that, while running a chit fund, unfilled signed cheques will be obtained in the course of the chit business - The petitioner had probabilised his defence, who got into the box, gave explanation as to how the signed cheques, landed in the hands of the first respondent. The first respondent unable to make discredit the evidence of the petitioner while cross examining him. The Hon'ble Apex Court in a case of Basalingappa Vs. Mudibasappa [ 2019 (4) TMI 660 - SUPREME COURT] had clearly given guidelines, as well as in the case of RANGAPPA VERSUS SRI MOHAN [ 2010 (5) TMI 391 - SUPREME COURT] , and held that the statutory presumption is rebuttable, which ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l, Coimbatore in C.C. No. 312 of 2014 (Old STC No. 185 of 2009) dated 25.04.2016. 2. The petitioner/accused was convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court-I at Magisterial Level, Coimbatore on the complaint filed by the first respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in C.C. No. 312 of 2014 by judgment dated 25.04.2016 and sentenced to undergo six months simple imprisonment and to pay the cheque amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- as compensation to the complainant/first respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in Crl.A. No. 72 of 2016. The learned Sessions Judge, by judgment dated 24.03.2017, dismissed the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Revised Signature Card of the petitioner were not available in the Bank. But he had produced the Specimen Signature Card with regard to the another account of the petitioner, which was marked as Ex. D4. 4. Both the Courts below failed to consider the evidence and materials, on the other hand, it was merely held that the signature as not been denied, hence statutory presumption under Section 139 gets attracted and accordingly the petitioner was convicted. The learned counsel for the petitioner further relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Basalingappa Vs. Mudibasappa, reported in (2019) 5 SCC 418, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court had summarized the principles enumerated by the Apex Court with regard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the judgment rendered by the Lower Appellate Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gamini Bala Koteswara Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2009) 10 SCC 636 had clearly held that the word perverse in terms as understood in law, has been defined to mean against the weight of evidence . In this case, the evidence had not been properly considered. In view of the above decisions, the judgment of the Courts below may be interfered with by setting aside the same. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/complainant submitted that, in this case, the petitioner had not denied the signature in the cheque. The petitioner though admits that the cheque and pro-note were handed over to him, the same do not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evidence in support of the finding of fact reached by the two subordinate Courts and that the finding of fact was not unreasonable or perverse. Further, this Court in Crl.R.C. No. 1096 of 2013 in the case of Sathish Kumar Vs. Vidhyasagar, reported in 2021(2) MWN (Cr.) DCC 11 (Mad.) had followed the said decision of the Apex Court. 7. Considering the submissions made on either side and on a perusal of the materials on record, it is not in dispute that the petitioner/accused had handed over the signed cheque/Ex. P2 to the first respondent. According to the petitioner during the year, 1995, the first respondent was running a chit business in the name of M/s. Praveenath Chits. The first respondent/P.W. 1/complainant admitted that from the y ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase, the petitioner had got into the box, gave his explanation about the handing over of the cheque and questioned the difference in ink. Both the Courts below failed to analyse the evidence on the contrary proceeded merely on presumption and convicted the petitioner. 10. In view of the above, this Court finds that the petitioner had probabilised his defence, gave proper explanation. The Courts below failed to analyse the evidence, weigh the materials, consider the explanation given, on the other hand primarily on the presumption convicted the petitioner, failing to look into the fact that the petitioner has probabilised his defence. In view of the same, this Court is inclined to set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the trial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
