TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 992X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... replied to it. He has not filed any document to rebut the evidence relied by the complainant. The grounds of revision does not disclose any error or illegality to interfere the judgment of the Courts below under the revisional jurisdiction. In this case, Ex.P-8 the ledger accounts extract maintained in the course of business proves the debt payable by the accused to the complainant. Therefore, this Court finds no merit in this revision petition. This Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. - Crl.R.C.No.900 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 8-8-2022 - THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN For the Petitioner :Mr.P.Narayana Prasadh for Mr.M.N.Bala Krishnan For the Respondent :Mr.V.Sivakumar ORDER The Revision Petitioner i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. The business transaction between the accused and the complainant stopped in the year 2006. The subject cheque given as security was misused by the complainant after two years. 4.The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.C.Narayanan vs- State of Maharashtra and another reported in [(2016)1 SCC (Cri) 67, submitted that, complaint is filed through the power of attorney, who does not know about the transaction in connection with the subject cheque. Therefore, the complaint is not maintainable. He also relied upon the judgment of this Court rendered in Pandurangan vs- Sivakami reported in [2017(2) MWN (Cr.) DCC 113 (Mad)] and submitted that, the name of the com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has deposed about the transactions and also proved through documentary evidence namely, ledger account Ex.P-8. This ledger extract indicates that as on 04/06/2008, the accused was liable to pay a due of Rs.6,35,677/-. 7.Therefore, the facts of the A.C. Narayanan case (cited supra), which was filed by the company through power agent without any supporting document like power of attorney or resolution by the Directors of the Company is different and the dictum of that judgment will not apply to the case in hand. Similarly, the name of the payee in the cheque being written in different ink alone is not the reason for this Court to suspect the case of the complainant as in Pandurangan case (cited supra) by the petitioner counsel. In that ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .P-8. The revision petitioner herein though received statutory notice has not replied to it. He has not filed any document to rebut the evidence relied by the complainant. The grounds of revision, which are extracted above does not disclose any error or illegality to interfere the judgment of the Courts below under the revisional jurisdiction. The two judgments cited are factually different to the facts of the case in hand. The name of the payee written in different ink will not per se render the cheque invali in view of Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Moreso, in this case, Ex.P-8 the ledger accounts extract maintained in the course of business proves the debt payab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
