TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1975X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the burden under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act will fall upon the accused. In this case, there is no admission by the complainant-bank that the cheque amount exceeds the debt amount - In S. Krishnamurthy Vs Chellammal [ 2015 (3) TMI 1386 - SUPREME COURT] , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has very clearly held that while dealing with an application in Criminal Procedure Code, disputed questions of fact cannot be gone into. Hence, this petition is closed with liberty to the petitioner to raise all the points before the Trial Court. G.R.Surana/3 rd petitioner is directed to appear before the Trial Court within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and file an application under Section 436 Cr.P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on in C.C.No.3645 of 2015 before the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the five accused, for quashing which A1, A2 and A4 are before this Court. 4. Heard Mr.S.J.Jagadev, learned counsel for the accused who submitted that the impugned cheque were given only as a security and not towards the discharge of the liability, as contended by the complainantbank. He further submitted that towards the loan amount, the accused has paid around Rs.54,00,000/-, that being the margin money and therefore, the cheque for Rs.5,03,21,250/- does not represent the correct debt amount. He placed strong reliance upon the terms of the contract and submitted that the accused had also given ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that case, the complainant had admitted that the accused had given a Demand Draft for Rs.2,00,000/- and in those circumstances, this Court held that the cheque amount exceeds the debt amount. 9. Mr. S.J. Jagadev placed reliance upon the bank statement to of this Court, the bank statement cannot be relied upon to quash the prosecution and it has to be proved in the manner known to law during trial while examining the witnesses produced by the complainant-bank. It is for the complainant-bank to establish the ingredients of the offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and only thereafter the burden under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act will fall upon the accused. In this case, there is no admission by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the cases on the same day, on she executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties (common sureties). Thereafter, the 3 nd petitioner shall appear for the hearings under Sections 251, 313 Cr.P.C and on the date of judgment. For other hearings, if the third petitioner files an application under Section 317 of Cr.P.C., undertaking that she will not dispute her identity and that her counsel will cross-examine the prosecution witnesses on the day they are examined in-chief, without adopting any dilatory tactics, her presence can be dispensed with. If the accused adopts any dilatory tactics, the Trial Court shall insist upon the presence of the accused. If the accused absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered against them under Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
