9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 985X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed and commit him to prison to undergo the remaining sentence. - Crl. R.C. No. 1239 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 7-2-2020 - THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N. PRAKASH For Petitioner : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan For Respondent : Mrs.V.Suguna ORDER This Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the judgment, dated 24.06.2013, passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Erode, in C.A.No.19 of 2013, confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 21.03.2013, passed by the Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level No.I), Erode, in C.C.No.60 of 2012. 2.For the sake of convenience, the petitioner and the 1st respondent will be referred to as accused and complainant, respectively. 3.The complainant is a c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the evidence on record and hearing either side, the trial Court, by judgment and order dated 21.03.2013, in C.C.No.60 of 2012, convicted the accused of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of ₹ 5,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 30 days. 7.The appeal in C.A.No.19 of 2013 that was filed by the accused was dismissed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Erode, on 24.06.2013. 8.Challenging the concurrent findings of the two Courts below, the accused has filed the present Criminal Revision Case, before this Court, under Section 397 (1) r/w. 401 Cr.P.C. 9.Heard Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan, learned counsel for the revi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cover was returned to the sender, since the accused did not come forward to claim the letter. For this, the complainant cannot be faulted. 12.Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan further submitted that Saravanakumar (P.W.1) does not have the authority to give evidence on behalf of the complainant, as there was no proper Power of Attorney. This argument was also considered by both the Courts below and was rejected. Saravanakumar (P.W.1) was given the Power of Attorney, which has been marked in the trial Court as Ex.P1, even otherwise, Saravanakumar (P.W.1) was working as Manager in the complainant company and was well aware of the transactions in question. He subjected himself to grilling cross-examination by the accused and has given satisfactory answe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 45 of 2019 decided on 17.10.2019), the Supreme Court has held as follows : ''20.The Trial Court and the High Court proceeded as if, the appellant is to prove a debt before civil court wherein, the plaintiff is required to prove his claim on the basis of evidence to be laid in support of his claim for the recovery of the amount due. A dishonour of cheque carries a statutory presumption of consideration. The holder of cheque in due course is required to prove that the cheque was issued by the accused and that when the same presented, it was not honoured. Since there is a statutory presumption of consideration, the burden is on the accused to rebut the presumption that the cheque was issued not for any debt or other liability. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
