9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1094X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e that there is neither any evidence nor any documents put forth by the revision petitioner supporting his case. Though it is claimed by the revision petitioner that the entire sale consideration was paid as per his promise, absolutely there is no material or a piece of paper to support his claim. The statutory presumption raised under section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act as against the revision petitioner as subject cheques were issued for the sum indicated in the cheque towards a legally enforceable debt and liability, which the revision petitioner had to repay to the original complainant towards the sale price received by him as power agent. In the case on hand admittedly while drawing a presumption in favor of the respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3.The Revision Petitioner was entrusted as the power of attorney by said R.Bommi such that authorizing to sell her house property situated in Ramapuram in Chennai. Revision Petitioner was appointed as General Power of Attorney by a registered dated 18.07.2018 on the file of Joint Sub-Registrar Office, Saidapet. 4.In pursuant to the above GPA, the revision Petitioner acted in good faith and sold the house property for sale consideration at ₹ 13,50,000/- (Rupees Thirteen lakhs and fifty thousand only). Previously an undertaking was given by the Revision Petitioner in favour of the said Bommiammal to pay the sale consideration on its receipt from the vendee. Yet again two cheques were also issued by the Revision Petitioner as a se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal in C.A.No.70 of 2013 on the file of the learned District and Sessions Court, Thiruvallur. Misfortunately, the appeal came to be dismissed by an order dated 13.08.2013, which is under challenge in this criminal revision. 7.I heard Mr.T.Munirathinam Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.Rathanavel, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the entire materials available on record. 8.It is seen from the records that the case of the complainant before the Trial Court is that the petitioner herein was appointed as Power of Attorney Agent of R.Bommi to sell a house property in Ramavaram, Chennai. He was so authorized to sell the house property on behalf of R. Bommi and he was entrusted with duty to pay the sale cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t found that her property was sold at a higher rate than that of the amount informed by the revision petitioner quoting ₹ 13,50,000/- (Rupees Thirteen lakhs and fifty thousand only). Whereupon the complainant obtained certified copy of the sale deed dated 16.10.2008 and 03.04.2009 by which the petitioner house property and the land attached to it was sold by the revision petitioner acting as complainant s power agent. 12.It was shocking to see that the face value of the property was quoted and stood reflected as ₹ 33,11,000/- (Rupees Thirty three lakhs and eleven thousand only). Thereupon the complainant demanded the balance sale consideration and for that a cheque dated 18.03.2009 in Cheque No.70795 was issued for a sum S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner had failed to rebut the presumption under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, thereby held the revision petitioner guilty of an offence under Negotiable Instruments Act. On appeal the appellate court also concurred with the decision of the trial court. 17.In the said factual matrix all that has to be looked by this Court in this appeal is as to whether the revision petitioner had successfully rebutted the initial burden rest on him to establish that there is no legally enforceable debt or any other liability for which the cheques were issued. 18.Further this court finds that it is not the case of the revision petitioner that the cheque was not issued to the complainant and it is not a case of forgery or manipulation. 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, that the cheques were issued to the complainant for the discharge of debt or other liability, the fact remains that such presumption is not rebutted by the revision petitioner. 24.In such event I do not find any irregularity or infirmity over the findings of the courts below holding the revision petitioner guilty of offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. This court had also ensured that all the statutory requirements falling under section 138(a-c) of NI Act is duly complied with before institution of the subject complaint. 25.In the result, this criminal revision fails and the same is accordingly dismissed by confirming the Judgment made by the Learned Principal Sessions Court, Tiru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
