9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1296X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enied by the respondents herein. This Court is of the considered view that the first appellate Court is right in entertaining a suspicion with respect to the coming into existence of Ex.P17, which has not been whispered at the earlier point of time but only at the conclusion of the Trial Court. Thus, taking into consideration of Ex.P17, the first Appellate Court has rightly held that there is no proper explanation with respect to liability between the A1 and A5 alleged therein and for the debt due by A-5, A1 has issued the cheque in question - appeal dismissed. - Criminal Appeal No. 552 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 11-8-2018 - Rmt. Teekaa Raman, J. For the Appellant : Mr. N. Baaskaran, for M/s.Ram and Ram. For the Respondent : No Appearance JUDGMENT This Criminal Appeal is filed to set aside the Judgment dated 05.06.2008 passed in C.A.No.519 of 2006 on the file of learned District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.III) at Coimbatore and to restore the order of conviction passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Coimbatore in C.C.No.375 of 2003, dated 15.11.2006. 2. This Appeal is filed against the Judgment of acquittal of the respondents by the Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 15/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Lakhs Forty One Thousand and Fifteen only) was outstanding amount payable by A-5. (f) M/s.Anu Yarns (A-1) a sister concern of M/s. Shanti Mills Pvt., Ltd., (A-5) issued three cheques in order to discharge the liability of A-5. The cheque details are as follows: Cheque No. Date Sum (i) 423585 16.09.2002 8,88,669/- (ii) 423856 20.09.2002 8,28,120/- (iii) 423857 25.09.2002 8,26,513/- (g) All the above said three cheques when presented by the complainant were dishonoured on account of Funds Insufficient vide Cheque Return Memorandum dated 25.10.2002. (h) A legal notice dated 9th November 2002 was sent by the complainant, calling the accused to discharge the liability. The notice was returned on 12th November 2002 with an endorsement Intimation given . (i) As the accused failed to pay the amount as demanded in the legal notice, the complainant company filed the complaint for an offence u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... structions of the fifth accused, the first accused/partnership firm has issued cheques, Ex.P4 and Ex. P6. On presentation, the same were returned by stating that there are 'insufficient funds' in the account, hence, the complaint. 11. The suggestive case of the respondents/accused 1 to 4 is that the complainant company is a total stranger to them. The respondents 1 to 4 have not handed over any cheque to them towards any legally enforceable debt or liability. The fourth accused was not the partner of the partnership firm as on the date of issuance of the cheques. In this regard, reliance was place on the deposition of PW2 and DW1 clearly indicate that on the date of issuance of cheque the fourth respondent/fourth accused was not a partner of the first accused firm. 12. As cited supra, the case of the respondents / accused is that the accused company had no business transactions with the complainant company. It is their case that one Guruswamy, shareholder of the Chamber of Cotton Textiles is the broker for supply of yarn to the fifth accused company and Ex.P3 clearly indicates the supply of yarn made through the said broker only. It was also admitted by PW1 that the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of examination of PW1. In fact PW1 was specifically confronted with regard to the availability of any letter or any document evidencing the issuance of cheque in question issued by the first accused for and on behalf of the fifth accused, but PW1 denied the same. However, it appears, after completion of examination of witness on the side of the complainant, the defendants side witnesses DW1 and DW2 were examined. At that time, the matter was posted for argument and by way of recall petition PW1 re-entered into the witness box and marked Ex.P17. It caused very serious doubts as to the genuineness and veracity of the said document. It remains stood that immediately after marking all the documents a specific question has been put before the PW1 and also having made necessary application and to sent for the comparison of the signature found in Ex.P17 with the admitted said signature of the accused. However, the reason best known, trial Court dismissed the petition. Besides, it seems to have taken the pain in comparing the signature in Ex.P17 with the admitted signature, on his own. Such attitude adopted by the trial Magistrate in comparing the signature which is hereby deprecated. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
