2021 (8) TMI 374 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - financial transaction took place between the petitioner and the respondent or not - petitioner claims that the cheque in question was not issued by the petitioner to the respondent / complainant - rebuttal of evidence adduced on the side of the complainant - HELD THAT - It is true that Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure confers power upon the Appellate Court to permit additional evidence to be taken. As rightly pointed out by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, summoning of the letter of the petitioner, dated 30.03.2010 requesting the Manager, ICICI Bank, Tirunelveli Junction Branch, to stop payment of cheques and the Bank account maintained by him in Savings Account No.613501514466, are not at all necessary for the just decision of the appeal in C.A.No.125 of 2018, since even if the cheque issued by the petitioner happened to be dishonoured on the ground that account closed , a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, is still maintainable. Based on the complaint lodged by the present petitioner, one K.R.P.Elango, has been prosecuted and the mere contention of the present petitioner is that only at the behest of K.R.P.Elango, the respondent /complainant filed a complaint cannot be accepted, in the absence of sufficient proof. The examination of the Post Man, Mukkudal Post Office, is not necessary for the present case. Since it is not the case of the petitioner that he did not receive any statutory notice, dated 09.11.2011 - the Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Petition to set aside orders in C.A.No.125 of 2018 - Additional evidence application dismissed - Rebuttal of evidence - Examination of witnesses and documents - Legal provisions under Negotiable Instruments Act - Statutory notice - Previous dismissal of similar petitions - Appellate Court's power to permit additional evidence.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought to set aside orders in C.A.No.125 of 2018, where he was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner's defense was that the cheque in question was not issued by him to the complainant, alleging the complaint was instigated by a money lender. The Trial Court convicted him, leading to the appeal. During the appeal, an application for additional evidence was filed, which was dismissed by the III Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli, citing various grounds.

The grounds for dismissal included the core issue of whether the cheque was issued by the petitioner, rendering examination of the Banker unnecessary. The Judge also found the statement of accounts of the complainant's Banker irrelevant, as the complainant claimed to have advanced the loan from his cash. Additionally, the Judge noted that the statutory notice was served and undisputed, hence examination of Postal Officials was deemed unnecessary. The Judge also highlighted the previous dismissal of a similar application by the Trial Court and Appellate Court, barring the petitioner from filing another similar application.

The petitioner's counsel argued for setting aside the orders, citing the need to rebut the evidence and present contentions. The list of documents and witnesses relied upon by the petitioner was detailed, but the Judge found them unnecessary for a just decision. The Judge referenced legal provisions under the Negotiable Instruments Act and previous court decisions to support the dismissal of the application for additional evidence. The Judge emphasized that the previous dismissal of similar petitions indicated no grounds for interference with the III Additional District Judge's order.

In conclusion, the Judge dismissed the Criminal Original Petitions, upholding the III Additional District Judge's decision. The connected miscellaneous petitions were also closed. The judgment highlighted the legal provisions, previous court decisions, and the grounds for dismissing the application for additional evidence, emphasizing the sufficiency of evidence already on record and the lack of necessity for further examination or documents.