9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 506X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondent issued statutory notice dated 13.10.2010 and the same was returned unserved as 'unclaimed' and hence, the complaint was filed - Since the issuance of cheque [ExP1] is admitted, the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is attracted. To discharge the presumption, the petitioner / accused has examined himself as DW1 and examined his father as DW2. ExR1 to ExR19 were also marked before the Court, to rebut the presumption. The case of the petitioner/accused is that the account in Kotak Mahindra Bank was maintained at Adayar Branch as a salary account, when he was working in a Call Centre at Chennai and the said account was closed a long ago. The petitioner/accused neither knew the complainant nor borr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1-10-2020 - THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI For the Petitioner : Mr.N.Tamilmani For the Respondent : Mr.S.Venkatesan ORDER This revision petition is filed as against the concurrent findings of the trial Court and the appellate Court against this petitioner, on the complaint instituted by the respondent/complainant for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. 2.The respondent / complainant filed a complaint against this petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the learned Judicial Magistrate [Fast Track Court at Magesterial Level], Thanjavur that the complainant and the father of the accused were friends. On 16.08.2010, the petitioner/ accus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hanjavur and was taken on file in C.A.No.11 of 2015 and the appellate Court by its judgment dated 21.08.2015 dismissed the appeal that there is no merit in the appeal. 5.Aggrieved over the findings of the trial Court and the appellate Court, the present revision case is preferred before this Court on the ground that the statutory notice [ExP4] as required under the NI Act is not served upon the petitioner and the petitioner is also residing nearby the complainant's house, but the statutory notice is said to have been sent to the office address of the petitioner. Further, though the petitioner is residing nearby the complainant, he has not made any demand in person. The complainant himself has admitted that the money transaction was b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tory notice has been duly served on the petitioner, but in his office address and therefore, the petitioner cannot take a plea that no notice as required under the NI act is effected in this case. Therefore, the learned Counsel prayed that the revision case be dismissed. 10.This Court paid its anxious consideration to the rival submissions and also perused the available records. 11.The cheque [ExP1] belongs to the petitioner and the same has not been denied. The cheque [ExP1] was presented for collection by the respondent/ complainant on 16.09.2010 and the same was returned with an endorsement 'account closed'. The respondent issued statutory notice dated 13.10.2010 and the same was returned unserved as 'unclaimed' and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said Meena Pandi, through his friend/ complainant and other Binamis. 14.The trial Court as well as the appellate Court considered this plea raised by the petitioner / accused rightly and found that in the complaints [ExR1 and ExR2], the alleged date of incident was not mentioned, there is no averment that it was one Meena Pandi, who took away the cheques forcibly. The trial Court also found that the cheque number of this ExP1 has not been mentioned in the said complaints [ExR1 and ExR2] and the statutory notice in this case was issued on 13.10.2010 and this complaint was made only on 03.01.2011. Considering all these points, the contention of the petitioner/accused was rightly rejected the Courts below. 15.Though the petitioner ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
