9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 375X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in C.C.Nos.32, 33 and 34 of 2013. The revision petitioner filed a petition in Cr.M.P.No.633 of 2013 in C.C.No.32 of 2013, to send the cheque for expert opinion. That petition was dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court (Magistrate Level), Kovilpatti. Against the same, the petitioner preferred this Criminal Revision. 3.On the side of the revision petitioner, it is stated that the petitioner did not borrow any amount from the respondent / defacto complainant. He has recommended, one Sundarrajan, who borrowed a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) from the Financial Company, in which, the defacto complainant is working. Since the said Sundarrajan has failed to repay the amount, the cheque was misused by the respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... blank or having written thereon an incomplete negotiable instrument, he thereby gives prima facie authority to the holder thereof to make or complete, as the case may be, upon it a negotiable instrument, for any amount specified therein and not exceeding the amount covered by the stamp. The person so signing shall be liable upon such instrument, in the capacity in which he signed the same, to any holder in due course for such amount. Provided that no person other than a holder in due course shall recover from the person delivering the instrument any thing in excess of the amount intended by him to be paid thereunder. 6. On the side of the respondent a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bir Singh Vs. Mukesh Kumar (Criminal Appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also answered in the negative. Even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily signed and handed over by the accused, which is towards some payment, would attract presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in the absence of any cogent evidence to show that the cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt." 7.The petitioner has filed this petition after seven years from the date of filing of the private complaint in C.C.No.32 of 2013. Only to drag on the case, the petitioner has come forward with this petition. When the signature and issuance of cheque are admitted by the petitioner, there is no necessity to send the entries for expert opinion. 8.In the above circumstances, there is nothing sufficient enough to interfere with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
