9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1371X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant has not come with clean hands. The trial court has rightly acquitted the accused - It cannot be said that the findings of the trial court are perverse. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - CRL.A.No.25 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 22-6-2018 - P. Rajamanickam, J. For the Appellant : Mr.J.Sudhakaran For the Respondent : M/s.M.Jayapal Rajan P. Prakash Raaj JUDGMENT This Appeal has been filed by the complainant against the Judgment of acquittal passed by the VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai in C.C.No.759 of 2008 dated 21.11.2008. 2. The appellant herein has filed a private complaint stating that the respondent herein borrowed a sum of ₹ 1,00,000/- on 27.02.2006 and with a view to d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n brief, is as follows: That on 27.02.2006, the accused, to meet out certain necessities borrowed a sum of ₹ 1,00,000/- from the complainant and after repeated requests, the accused had issued two cheques dated 18.10.2007 for ₹ 50,000/- each. The said cheques were marked as Ex.P1 and Ex.P2. The complainant has presented the said cheques in the bank on 18.10.2007 for encashment. The said cheques were returned on 23.10.2007 as 'funds insufficient' in the accused account. The returned memos and bank debit advices of the aforesaid two cheques were marked as Ex.P3 to Ex.P6 respectively. Thereafter on 16.11.2007, the complainant has issued a statutory notice calling upon the accused to pay the cheque amount. The office copy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and his wife and marked as Ex.D1. He has produced a xerox copy of the bank pass book of the said Babuji and marked as Ex.D2. A copy of the letter sent by him dated 12.10.2007 to the complainant has been marked as Ex.D3 and the postal acknowledgment signed by the complainant has been marked as Ex.D4. 8. The evidence on the side of the accused was closed with DW1 and thereafter learned Metropolitan Magistrate, heard both sides and found that the accused has not issued Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 cheques to discharge the debt and accordingly, he acquitted the accused by the Judgment dated 21.11.2008. Aggrieved by the same, the complainant has filed the present appeal. 9. Heard Mr.J.Sudhakaran, learned counsel for the appellant and M/s. M. Jayapal R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lainant has admitted the execution of the said document. He further submitted that when the complainant advanced a loan to Babuji and his wife, only after obtaining a loan deed (Ex.D1), he would not have advanced a hand loan to the accused without getting any document. He further contended that admittedly even before presenting the Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 cheques before the bank, on 12.10.2007 itself, vide Ex.D3, the accused has sent a letter requesting the complainant not to present the cheques till the payment made by the original debtors and only after receipt of the said letter, the accused/complainant has presented the Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 cheques and this would also support the case of the accused that he has issued Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 only as securit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay the same with interest @ 24% p.a., within three months. So it is clear that the complainant gave a loan to one Babuji and his wife only by getting necessary document and that being so, the contention of the complainant that he gave a sum of ₹ 1,00,000/- to the accused as hand loan, is not acceptable one. 15. It is also to be pointed out that PW1 has admitted in his cross-examination that he has received Ex.D3 letter and also admitted the Ex.D4 postal acknowledgment. Ex.D3 letter is dated 12.03.2007, in which, the accused has stated that on 27.02.2006, the said Babuji and Mumaj have executed a loan deed, in which, he has signed as witness. He also stated that after execution of the said loan deed, as security, the complainant has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stood as guarantor. It is also not the case of the complainant that the accused stood as guarantor. His definite case is that the transaction with the Babuji and his wife Mumtaj and the transaction with the accused are totally independent transactions. Therefore, the aforesaid decision will not apply to the facts of the case. 18. In A.N.Chandru Vs. K. Jayasankar, (supra) the accused was an advocate. When he was questioned u/s.313 Cr.P.C., he denied very issuance of the cheque, but when he was examined as DW1, he has taken a stand that he issued the cheque as security. Under the said circumstances, this court has rejected the defence taken by the accused. But in the present case, the facts are totally different. From the very beginning, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
