9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 593X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ely, the complainant also issued a legal notice on 04.04.2012 to the petitioner and it was also acknowledged by him on 09.04.2012, but this petitioner/accused neither sent any reply to the notice within the statutory period nor paid the money. However, he sent a reply only on 08.06.2012 with certain allegations, even then, he did not make any attempt to substantiate the same before the trial Court. The respondent /complainant has also produced his Bank Account Statement as Ex.P6 to show that as on the date of borrowal, he was having ₹ 14,29,506.16/- in his account, by which, he has established that he has sufficient sources of money and admittedly he is also a business man, having business establishment on selling some construction materials. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the petitioner would not have sufficient money of ₹ 4 lakhs on a Sunday in his house. In this case, the petitioner has not denied that the cheque ExP1 and the signature found therein are not that of him. The courts below, considering the available evidence, has also rightly rejected the case of the petitioner and found him guilty and convicted. The reasons assigned by the petitioner in support ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in acquaintance with the accused and taking advantage of that acquaintance, on 25.03.2012, the petitioner / accused approached the respondent / complainant that he was in need of ₹ 4 lakhs to meet out certain emergency expenses. Accordingly, the first respondent / complainant also gave ₹ 4 lakhs on that day itself to the petitioner and in discharge of that loan amount, the accused gave a cheque bearing No.588924, dated 26.03.2012 of Corporation Bank, Thanjavur Branch. As instructed by the accused, the cheque was presented on 26.03.2012, but the same was dishonoured for 'funds insufficient' and therefore, after issuing statutory notice, he filed a complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate on 11.05.2012. 8.The trial Court considering the evidence placed before it, found the petitioner guilty and convicted and the appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the appellate Court. 9.Mr.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this petitioner, as an Engineer was doing construction work and was having business transaction with the first respondent / complainant. In the course of his business, he has purchased so many constructi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... na Janardhan Bhat Vs. Dattatraya G. Hedge and the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that as follows:- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Sections 138 139 - Ingredients of offence and nature of presumption arising under Section 139 - Section 138 has three ingredients viz. (a) that there is legally enforceable debt (b) that cheque was drawn for discharge in whole or in part of any debt or other liability which presupposes legally enforceble debt, and (c) that cheque so issued had been returned due to insufficiency of funds - Proviso appended to said Section provided for compliance of legal requirements before Complaint Petition can be acted upon by Court of law -Section 139 merely raised presumption that cheque was drawn in discharge of debt or other liability and presumption cannot be that there is legally enforceable debt. 12.In this judgement, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India cited the judgement reported in 2007 (12) Scale 96 - K.Prakashan Vs. P.K.Surenderan and held as follows :-12. In this judgement, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India cited the judgement reported in 2007 (12) Scale 96 - K.Prakashan Vs. P.K.Surenderan and held as follows :- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cution is obliged to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The obligation on the prosecution may be discharged with the help of presumptions of law or fact unless the accused adduces evidence showing the reasonable possibility of the non-existence of the presumed fact. 23. In other words, provided the facts required to form the basis of a presumption of law exist, no discretion is left with the court but to draw the statutory conclusion, but this does not preclude the person against whom the presumption is drawn from rebutting it and proving the contrary. A fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists. Therefore, the rebuttal does not have to be conclusively established but such evidence must be adduced before the court in support of the defence that the court must either believe the defence to exist or consider its existence to be reasonably probable, the standard of reasonability being that of the prudent man. In the same j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioner / accused during the trial that the cheque in dispute was issued as a blank cheque in the year 2005, but it was denied by the petitioner during his cross examination. The petitioner has taken a plea in the reply notice that yet another cheque bearing No. 588925 was misused at the instance of complainant, by foisting another case at Chennai. But, the petitioner / accused has not come forward to substantiate the same by producing those documents before the trial Court. Though the Manager has admitted in his evidence that the cheque in question was issued in the year 2005, he also stated in his evidence that the cheque book contains 50 leaflets and there is no prescribed time limit to the holder of the cheque to use the cheque within a stipulated time. In the absence of any valid grounds raised by the petitioner/ accused, it is not appropriate to entertain this revision case. 16.This Court paid its anxious consideration to the rival submissions made on either side and also perused the materials placed on record. 17.The scope of Criminal Revision under Section 397 r/w 401 CrPC is very limited and this Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence, unless and until there is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
