9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 48X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecorded the concurrent findings as to the guilt on the part of the revision petitioner/accused for the commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and this Court, on an independent application of mind to the entire material placed before it, is of the considered view that there is no error apparent or infirmity on the findings rendered by the Courts below. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused made alternately that the revision petitioner being a lady has imposed with a present sentence of nine months simple imprisonment and considering the fact that she has also levied with a compensation of ₹ 4 lakhs, sentence of imprisonment may be set aside and on the said submission, the Court heard the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent/private complainant also and this Court, after considering the said plea and taking into consideration of the fact that now the revision petitioner is aged about 62 years, is of the view that sentence of imprisonment awarded by the trial Court as confirmed by the lower appellate Court is to be set aside, instead, the default sentence is to be imposed in the event of no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... she is not having enough funds to honour the cheques and sought a time of six months and taking into consideration of the longstanding business relationship, the respondent/private complainant has also granted time. 3. During January 1996, the revision petitioner/accused came to the business place of the respondent/private complainant and told them that she is unable to arrange for the funds and hence revalidate all the cheques by altering the year of the cheques from 1995 to 1996. The respondent Firm also issued a notice on 17.07.1996 to the revision petitioner/accused stating that they are going to present the cheques and asked her to take steps to honour the said cheques. On 18.07.1996, the cheques were presented by the respondent/private complainant and it was returned with an endorsement ? stop payment?. In this regard, the respondent/private complainant has issued a statutory notice on 08.08.1996 and though it was received by the revision petitioner/accused on 13.08.1996, she did not take any steps to honour the cheques, but sent a reply under Ex.P16 contending false allegations. Since the revision petitioner/accused did not honour the cheques, in spite of receipt of stat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e said case would not come to the aid of the revision petitioner/complainant. All the documents relating to the closure of the said case have been filed by the respondent/complainant and it is also substantiated the fact that the concern police station was in active collusion with the respondent/complainant and without there being proper investigation, they have erroneously closed the case. (iv) Even as per the version of the respondent/complainant, there was earlier presentation of the cheques in question and therefore, the cause of action started to run even from the date of dishonour of the earlier presentation and therefore, the alleged second presentation based on the alteration of the year made in the cheques pursuant to filing of the present complaint on the face of it, is unsustainable in law. (v) The respondent/complainant without filing any petition to let in additional evidence had straight away marked number of documents and it is a procedural irregularity, which has affected the core of the case projected by the respondent/private complainant. (vi) In sum and substance, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused that under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... odged. 12. On behalf of the respondent/complainant one of the partner was examined as P.W.1. In the cross examination, he denied the suggestion that when the revision petitioner/accused appeared before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, No.I, Karur, in connection with C.C.No.617 of 1996 on 12.07.1996, she along with her husband were kidnapped and signatures were forcefully obtained in blank papers as well as stamp papers and cheques have also been altered and also admitted in Exs.P3 to P10, the year mentioned therein has been altered and the said fact has not been disclosed in the sworn statement as well as Ex.P15 statutory notice. 13. He would further state that with regard to the kidnapping, a case in Crime No.964 of 1996 was registered by the Karur Town Police Station and he took efforts to summon the document in connection with the said case and denied the suggestion that while referring the case, notice has not been served on the revision petitioner/accused, who was the de-facto complainant. D.W.1 was the Head Clerk of Judicial Magistrate No.I, Trichy and he speaks about the presence of the accused. He has pleaded ignorance about the presence of the accused before Judicia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in question. 20. It is the specific case of the respondent/complainant that when the cheques were presented on earlier occasion and get dis-honoured and immediately they contacted the revision petitioner/accused, who prayed for six months time to settle the amount and subsequently voluntarily came forward to alter the year of the cheques from 1995 to 1996. Though it is the specific case of the revision petitioner/accused that it amounts to material alteration, as already pointed out in criminal complaint lodged, in this regard, has become final, as the jurisdictional police has closed the case as 'Mistake of Fact' and no further steps have been taken either to reopen the case or to file a private complaint. 21. Ex.D4 marked through D.W.2 would also disclose that there was a settlement of part of the amount and it is also evidenced the fact that there was a business transactions between the revision petitioner/accused and the respondent/private complainant. 22. Though the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused made attempts to urge some points, which have not been advanced either before the trial Court or before the lower appellate Court, this Court is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
