9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1079X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The evidence of P.W.1, when carefully seen, his entire evidence in cross-examination read together, the same indicates that there is no privity of contract between the accused and himself. In fact, he has shown ignorance about the nature of legal notice issued by the accused and himself. He appears to have totally ignorant of the facts. His entire evidence indicates that only his brother had some dealing with the accused - this Court does not find any material to hold that the complainant has proved his case. The complainant has not discharged his burden in establishing the passing of consideration - appeal dismissed. - Criminal Appeal (MD) No.470 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 5-10-2018 - Mr. Justice N. Sathish Kumar For the Appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. On consideration of evidence available on record, the learned District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate, Sivagiri, Tirunelveli District found that the complainant has not proved his case beyond reasonable doubt and thereby, acquitted the accused. 4. Challenging the order of acquittal passed by the learned District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate, Sivagiri, Tirunelveli District, the present Criminal Appeal has been filed by the complainant. 5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the complainant would contend that the accused has not discharged the legal presumption attached to the cheque and it is not in dispute that the dishonoured cheque was that of the accused. The accused has taken two different stands. On earlier occasion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and acquitted the accused. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. 8. It is the specific case of the complainant that the accused has borrowed a sum of ₹ 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) on 24.01.2005 and issued Ex.P.1-cheque. Of course, Ex.P.1 cheque, when presented for encashment, was dishonoured and statutory notice was also issued within a time. These aspects are not in dispute. Though, at the initial stage, the accused, in his reply statement, took a defence to the effect that the cheque was stolen, there was no material to substantiate the above defence. But the fact remain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any document on 24.01.2005. Thereafter, only, on his insistence, the accused gave a cheque on 06.05.2005. Paying huge amount without any document, at the first instance, is against the normal human conduct. Hence, this Court does not find any material to hold that the complainant has proved his case. 11. Absolutely, there is no dispute with regard to the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment cited by the complainant's counsel. But, on facts of the case, from the admission of P.W.1 itself, when legal presumption has been discharged, then the burden is on the part of the complainant to establish the passing of consideration. However, the complainant has not discharged his burden in establishing the pas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
