9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 312X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the husband and wife were at logger heads or that they were living separately. Her version that, the signature on the cheque was forged by the husband was not seen put to PW1 in cross examination. On the other hand, her contention is falsified from the very fact that, she has gone to the extent of stating that even the postal acknowledgment produced along with the complaint was forged and produced by the complainant themselves. It seems that the court below did not correctly evaluate the evidence in its correct perspective. The court below did not take into consideration Exts.P3 to P6 documents - the matter needs to be considered afresh by the court below on the basis of the evidence already on record and the further evidence, if an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not guilty and dismissed the complaint. Challenging the acquittal and judgment in S.T.No.80/2009, the complainant has preferred this appeal. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the accused who is the 1st respondent. Examined the records. 5. PW1 has tendered evidence touching on the case of the complainant. According to PW1, the husband of the accused had joined two chitties run from the branch of the complainant company at Pala. Both the chitties were bid and amounts were paid. Towards the remittance of the future instalments, documents were executed by the husband of the accused. The accused herein was the guarantor. Since default was committed, the accused, towards the discharge of the liabilit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that, Ext.P9 cheque was handed over after filling it up. The Court also noticed that, Ext.P5 notice was anterior to the date of cheque. Hence the Court concluded that the version of PW1 that, the accused brought the cheque by filling up its content was inherently improbable, since there was no material to show that by prior notice, the amount quantified was informed to the complainant. It was also noticed by the Court below that the accused was neither the guarantor nor the subscriber of the chitty. It was not likely in the ordinary course of human conduct, that pursuant to notice issued to the principal debtor, the guarantor would issue a cheque to clear the liability. It was also pointed out by the Court below that, the execution of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the accused to substantiate it. On the other hand, as mentioned above, the chitty transaction of the husband stood admitted. It was also not in dispute that the wife was a guarantor. There is nothing on record to show that the husband and wife were at logger heads or that they were living separately. Her version that, the signature on the cheque was forged by the husband was not seen put to PW1 in cross examination. On the other hand, her contention is falsified from the very fact that, she has gone to the extent of stating that even the postal acknowledgment produced along with the complaint was forged and produced by the complainant themselves. 10. The learned counsel for the accused vehemently contended that, there were substantia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the transactions in the complaint. 12. Evidently, the court below seems to have been carried away by conjunctures and surmises and did not appreciate the evidence, in its correct perspective and also did not apply the legal principles involved with respect to section 139 of the NI Act. 13. In the appeal, the respondent filed Crl.M.A. No,2/2019 with a prayer to introduce in evidence, Annexure R1(a) as an additional document. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, before the court below the complainant had relied on Exts.P3, P4, P6 and P7 which were the loan registers and extracts of the accounts and statement in relation to both the transactions. According to the accused, she had also filed Crl.M.P.No.42/2010 before t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the court below went wrong in marking Exts.P3 to P6 without insisting for the production of the above certificate. 15. It seems that the court below, as mentioned above, did not correctly evaluate the evidence in its correct perspective. The court below did not take into consideration Exts.P3 to P6 documents. In the above circumstances, I feel that the matter needs to be considered afresh by the court below on the basis of the evidence already on record and the further evidence, if any, which both sides propose to adduce. In the light of the relief that is proposed to be granted, I am inclined to direct the court below to permit the plaintiff to produce the original records and registers, if it is proposed to be produced. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
