9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 628X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Further, the evidence of the PW1 would show that she had personal knowledge about the transaction which took place between her father (complainant) and the accused. Hence no adverse inference can be drawn against the complainant for his non-examination as witness. The findings of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Tiruchirapalli in C.C.No.460 of 2002 dated 17.05.2006, that the accused has committed an offence u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is restored - In so far as the sentence awarded by the trial court is modified as six months Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of ₹ 5,000/-, in default, three months Rigorous Imprisonment is awarded. - CRL.A.(MD)No.24 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 19-6-2018 - P. Rajamanickam, J. For Appellant :Mr.T.A.Om Prakash For Respondent : Mr. Dr.N.Shanmugavel JUDGMENT This appeal has been filed by the complainant against the Judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.II, Tiruchirapalli) dated 17.11.2006 in Crl.A.No.102 of 2006 reversing the Judgment passed by the Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Tiruchirapalli in C.C.No.460 of 2002 dated 17.05.2006. 2. The appellant herein has filed a complaint u/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. After receipt of the notice, instead of paying the amount, he has sent a reply with false avermnets. The said reply notice has been marked as Ex.P6. A copy of the report submitted by the Inspector of Police, Thillai Nagar, has been marked as Ex.P7. 5. Evidence on the side of the complainant was closed with PW1 and thereafter the accused was questioned u/s.313 of Cr.P.C., The accused denied them as false and also filed a written statement. He examined himself as DW1 and examined his father as DW2. 6. DW1 and DW2 have stated in their evidence that the DW1's mother was a subscriber in the chit which was conducted by PW1 and that being so, on 04.06.2002 at about 2.00 p.m., PW1 and six others came to their house and criminally intimidated DW1's mother and obtained signatures in two blank pronotes and also they have taken a blank cheque which was signed and kept by the accused in the bureau and the said cheque has been filled in the name of the complainant and filed the above case. After consulting with the advocate, DW2 has filed a complaint on 12.09.2002 before the Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Tiruchirapalli and the said complaint was forwarded to the Inspector of Police ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rror in reversing the well reasoned Judgment of the trial court. He further submitted that the accused has not stated any reason for keeping the signed cheque in his house. He further submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.II) Tiruchirapalli has failed to consider that the accused and his family members have not immediately lodged a complaint before the police. He further submitted the learned Additional Sessions Judge has failed to consider that with a view to escape from paying the cheque amount, the accused has set up his father and filed a private complaint belatedly before the Judicial Magistrate and the said complaint was forwarded to the Inspector of Police, Thillai Nagar and the said Inspector of Police, after enquiry, closed the said complaint as false. He further submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has failed to consider that the suit also filed with a view to escape from making payment for the cheque. He further submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge erred in coming to the conclusion that the accused has rebutted the presumption by adducing satisfactory evidence and hence he prayed to allow the appeal and set aside t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 at about 2.00 p.m., PW1 and others came to his house and criminally intimidated his mother by showing knife, aruval, etc, and obtained signatures from his mother in two blank pronotes. His further case is that PW1 and others have taken a blank cheque which was signed and kept by him in a bureau and the same has been filled up in the complainant's name and filed a false case. But he has not stated any reason for keeping the signed cheque in his bureau. This lead to an inference that the contention of the accused that the PW1 and others have taken a blank cheque which was signed and kept by him in his bureau is a false one. 15. It is also to be pointed out that neither the accused nor his family members have lodged a complaint before the police. On the contrary, the father of the accused (DW2) has filed a private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Tiruchirapalli and the said complaint was forwarded to the Inspector of Police, Thillainagar. The Inspector of Police, after receipt of the complaint, has conducted an enquiry and submitted a report on 12.09.2002 stating that the allegations made in the complaint are false. Further on 04.09.2002, the accused and his pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
