9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 996X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the appellant/complainant has to prove the case in the manner known to law. Even though, the respondent denied the case, he has not come forward to examine any witness to deny the execution of the cheque. Though the appellant alleged the borrowal of money and the issuance of cheque, he has not automatically entitled to the relief sought for in the complaint, unless he proved his case. There is a material contraction in the materials placed by the appellant namely, the complaint, proof affidavit and evidence. Even though, the respondent denied the borrowal and issuance of the cheque in the notice itself, the appellant has not stated anything either in the complaint or in the proof affidavit about the specific date of borrowal and date of issuance of post dated cheque. The appellant has not established his case. Hence, the trial Court found that the respondent is entitled for acquittal and there is no need to interfere with the judgment passed by the Court below - appeal dismissed. - Crl. Appeal No.158 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 27-8-2018 - Mr. P. Velmurugan J. For the Appellant : Mr. A. Mohan For the Respondent : Mr. T. Munirathinam Naidu JUDGMENT The pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lopment of his business. He promised to pay the said sum within a period of one month. Despite repeated demands, the respondent did not come forward to pay the money. But, to discharge the debt, he issued a cheque bearing No.768492, dated 23.11.2006 drawn on ICICI Bank, Pricol Complex, Periyanaickenpalayam, Coimbatore in favour of the appellant on 23.11.2006. At the time of issuing the cheque, the respondent informed the appellant that the cheque would be honoured at the time of presentation. Therefore, the appellant, believing on the words of the respondent, on the same day, immediately presented the cheque for collection through his Bank viz., Canara Bank, Gudalor Branch, Coimbatore and the said cheque was returned as dishonoured for the reason Funds insufficient with debit advice dated 25.11.2006 and hence, he immediately issued a legal notice dated 28.11.2006, Ex.P.5 to the respondent. The respondent, after receipt of the said notice, sent a reply notice 11.12.2006, Ex.P.7 refusing the allegations and he did not repay the amount. Hence, the appellant filed a complaint. 4.The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the trial Court has miserably failed to no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld papers from the respondent and conveniently forged his signature in the old cheque leaf and filled up the amount of ₹ 6,00,000/- and other details in the old cheque leaf and the same was forged by the appellant as the signature found in the said cheque is not that of the respondent. The respondent, after receipt of the notice only, came to know that the appellant forged the signature and therefore, he gave a complaint and issued a reply denying the averments made in Ex.P.4, the legal notice. 8.The learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that the year mentioned in the cheque is 2003. The next following cheque leaf bearing No.768493 was used only by the respondent on 05.09.2003 and the next chenque leaf bearing No.768494 was also used by the respondent on 20.09.2003 for his personal purpose and the respondent did not borrow any amount and he did not issue any cheque to the appellant. Moreover, as there is a material contradiction in the documents filed on behalf of the appellant, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 9.Heard Mr.A.Mohan, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.T.Munirathinam Naidu, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the materials ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ex.P.7. The rejoinder notice, issued by the appellant to the respondent, is marked as Ex.P.8. The rejoinder notice, sent by the respondent, is marked as Ex.P.9. 13.It is seen from the evidence of P.W.1, that the respondent borrowed a sum of ₹ 6,00,000/- as hand loan for his business development promising him to repay the said amount without any interest within one month. Since the respondent has not paid the said amount, he insisted him to pay the said amount. At his instance, the respondent issued Ex.P.1, the cheque dated 23.11.2006 bearing No.768492 dated 23.11.2006, drawn on ICICI Bank, Pricol Complex, Periyanaickenpalayam, Coimbatore and the same was returned on 24.11.2006 for the reason Funds insufficient along with Ex.P.2, return memo and Ex.P.3, debit advice. 14.But, in his complaint he has stated that the respondent borrowed a sum of ₹ 6,00,000/- during the year 2006 for his business development as hand loan as urgent and promised him to repay the said amount shortly. Despite several oral demands, for discharge of the debt, instead of repaying the amount borrowed, the respondent issued a cheque bearing No.768492 dated 23.11.2006, drawn on ICICI Bank, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1.2006. Hence, there is a material contradiction in the complaint, proof affidavit filed for Chief-examination and Cross-examination. 20.From the above, it is clear that the appellant has not stated any specific date either in the notice, complaint or in the proof affidavit, but he has simply stated that the respondent borrowed a sum of ₹ 6,00,000/- during the year 2006 for his business development as hand loan on oral promise to repay the same shortly. Secondly, since the appellant repeatedly demanded to repay the said amount orally, the respondent instead of repaying the loan amount he issued a cheque dated 23.11.2006 bearing No.768492 dated 23.11.2006, drawn on ICICI Bank, Pricol Complex, Periyanaickenpalayam, Coimbatore. Further, the appellant, in his cross examination, has stated that the respondent issued post dated cheque dated 23.11.2006 on 01.03.2006, but, no where, he has stated that the respondent issued a post dated cheque on 01.03.2006 itself. 21.Further, the respondent has not examined any witness to disprove the defence as stated in the reply notice. It is well settled law that the appellant/complainant has to prove the case in the manner known to law. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
