9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 1066X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appear to be probable. Both the Courts below recorded the concurrent findings that the revision petitioner/accused has committed the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and in the absence of any infirmity or perversity in the findings recorded by the Courts below, this Court, in exercise of it's revisional power, cannot interfere with the same. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed, confirming the conviction recorded by trial Court, as confirmed by the lower appellate Court. However, taking into consideration the fact that the revision petitioner/accused is employed as a Conductor in the services of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, is inclined to reduce the sentence from one year rigor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a cheque bearing No.549052, dated 07.12.2012 for a sum of ₹ 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) drawn on State Bank of India, Cantonment Branch, Trichy. The said cheque was presented by the respondent/complainant to his banker namely, Indian Overseas Bank, Manapparai Branch, on 12.12.2012 and it was returned with an endorsement Funds Insufficient . Thereafter, the respondent/complainant sent a statutory notice on 22.12.2012 and according to the revision petitioner, though it was received by him, he had neither sent a reply nor paid the amount and therefore, came forward to file the aforesaid private complaint. 4. During the course of trial, the private complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.8. On behalf of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ception of additional evidence before the lower appellate Court and without properly appreciating the contents of the same, it was erroneously rejected. He would further submit that in the event of this revision being allowed and remanded to the trial Court, he would be able to probablise his defence that he has nothing to do with the issuance of the cheque in question in favour of the respondent/complainant. 9. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/accused has also drawn the attention of this Court to the findings recorded by the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court and the testimony of P.W.1/complainant. 10. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondent/complainant would contend that the trial Court on a p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed as Ex.D.1. 15. It is pertinent to point out at this juncture that in the event of any concealment of income, it is for the appropriate Department to take action and simply because, the advancement of loan in favour of the revision petitioner/accused did not reflect in the Income Tax Returns, it does not mean that no such amount was advanced to the revision petitioner/accused. 16. It is open to the revision petitioner/accused to examine himself as competent witness in terms of Section 315 Cr.P.C., but he has not chosen to examine himself and though it was the stand that the cheque in question was issued in favour of one Thiyagarajan, nothing precluded him from examining the said person as a witness. In fact, the revision petitioner/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
