9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1237X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n that Ex.P.7 does not advance the case of the complainant and disbelieved the evidence of complainant and rightly disregarded the document Ex.P.7. The next limb case of the respondent/accused is that he never knew the complainant and he only knew the Power of Attorney Holder of the complainant - Held that:- The Lower Appellate Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and correctly came to the conclusion that in the absence of specific averments in the complaint regarding the date of borrowal and discrepancy in the evidence of P.W.1 and D.W.3 viz., between the Power of Attorney Holder and his Principal and in view of the supporting evidence of D.Ws.2, 4 and 5, who have clearly supported the suggestive case of the respondent/accused and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... os.293908 and 293910 dated 05.04.2000 drawn on Vijaya Bank Ltd., Mount Road Branch, Chennai, and when the said cheques were presented by the complainant to his Bankers viz., Union Bank of India, Egmore Branch, Chennai, on 16.04.2000 and on 25.04.2000 and again on 14.06.2000, the same were dishonoured on 17.06.2000 with an endorsement Insufficient funds and therefore, the complainant issued a legal notice on 27.06.2000 for payment of the cheque amount. The accused had received the said notice on 04.07.2000, but failed to make payment and hence, the two private complaints were filed by the complainant and the same were taken on file by the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, in C.C.Nos.10754 and 10755 of 2000 and framed char ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... el appearing for the appellant/complainant in both the cases would contend that in the absence of date of borrowal and non-production of the alleged pro-note and also in the absence of any plea regarding the nature of the transaction, the Lower Appellate Court ought not to have dismissed the complaints. It is further contended that in the absence of any reply notice sent by the respondent herein/accused, the Lower Appellate Court ought not to have interfered with the judgment of the trial Court in convicting the accused and hence, prayed for setting aside the order passed by the Lower Appellate Court in acquitting the accused. 6. Mr.P.Ragavan, learned Legal Aid Counsel appearing for the respondent in Crl.A.No.317 of 2007 made submissions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iction. However, the Lower Appellate Court for the reasons recorded therein accepted the case of the respondent/accused and acquitted the accused by allowing the criminal appeals. 9. It is seen from the records that the Power of Attorney Holder was examined as P.W.1 and the cheques in both the cases were marked as Exs.P.2 and Ex.P.7 in both the cases was projected as if it is a letter given by the accused to P.W.1 accepting his liability. On the contrary, the accused examined himself as D.W.1 and also examined the complainant viz., Principal of P.W.1 as D.W.3 and also examined one Palanivel as D.W.4 and Chitrarasu as D.W.5. In Ex.P.7, the alleged letter written and given by the accused to P.W.1 in the police station, D.W.2 and D.W.4 have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase of the respondent/accused is that he never knew the complainant and he only knew the Power of Attorney Holder of the complainant namely P.W.1 and to substantiate the same, he had examined the complainant viz., the Principal of P.W.1, who had categorically deposed that he never knew the accused and only P.W.1, the Power of Attorney Holder of the complainant was introduced by D.W.5 and P.W.1 promised to arrange finance through his partner now is in Srilanga and also supported the case of the accused assumes significance. 12. In view of the specific case suggested by the respondent/accused, in fine, D.W.3, who is the Principal of P.W.1, the alleged Power of Attorney Holder of the complainant himself has supported the case of the respond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... loan agreement and the relevant documents, the trial Court has clearly held that the suggestive case has been probabalised. 15. On the contrary, the complainant has failed to prove the legally enforceable pre-existing debt in support of the cheque in issue and accordingly, rejected the case of the complainant and the same cannot be found fault with and in view of the specific evidence of D.W.3 and the probablized evidence of D.Ws.2 and 4 and coupled with the want of material evidence as pointed out in the preceding paragraphs, the finding rendered by the Lower Appellate Court cannot be found fault with and as the same is well considered and well merited does not warrant any interference by this Court. Accordingly, both the criminal appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
