9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 1553X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his Court. The criminal revision stands dismissed. - Crl.R.C.No.972 of 2016 and Crl.MP.No 7762 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 16-8-2016 - MR. G. CHOCKALINGAM, J. For Petitioner : Mr.C.Venkatesalu. For Respondent : Mr.S.Viswanathan. ORDER The criminal revision petition is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal made in Crl.A.No.36 of 2015, dated 29.06.2016 confirming the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate (FTC), Tiruchengode made in STC.No.161 of 2013 dated 05.08.2015 . 2. The brief facts of the case is as follows :- The complainant is the respondent in the present revision petition. The complaint is filed under Section 138 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... late Court confirmed the order passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved over the same, the accused preferred the criminal revision before this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the Courts below failed to see that the cheque was not presented within the time prescribed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Firstly, the cheque was dishonoured on 15.02.2013, for which the complainant has not issued any notice. Again the cheque was represented for collection and legal notice was issued. The trial Court failed to note that the complainant has not proved that the revision petitioner borrowed a sum of ₹ 5,00,000/- from the complainant. Originally, the cheque was issued to one Perumal for the pur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne Perumal along with four other blank cheques, the cheque was subsequently filled up by the respondent/complainant and utilised for filing of this case. The learned counsel further stated that the cheque was issued to one Perumal, but failed to produce any sufficient materials to show that blank cheque was issued to one Perumal. The revision petitioner has taken summons to examine the said Perumal as defence witness, but he is not able to examine him and no satisfactory explanation have been put forth for non examination of Perumal. Since, the Perumal was not examined on the side of the revision petitioner, the blank cheque issued by the revision petitioner was misused by the complainant cannot be accepted and the arguments of the learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eceived the cheques, it is also admitted that it is not usual practice to obtain signature from the person who received the cheque in the cheque book record slip, hence, the said practice in this case is not believable, further in this case the said Perumal was not examined. 11. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner send Exs.D8 and D9 notice to the Perumal demanding the cheque etc., Exs.D8 and D9 are issued only after filing of the present complaint. This Court is of the view they are only created for the purpose of the case and the same cannot be accepted. Exs.D8 and D9 notice clearly stated there is blank cheque was issued during February 2013. But in Ex.D4 record slip it was stated that the cheque was issued to Perumal only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
