9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 444X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sum of ₹ 1,02,220/- and another cheque for a sum of ₹ 6,47,632/- are due in view of the interest payable on the advance amount - Admittedly, no books of accounts have been filed before the Court to show that the accused owed money as claimed by PW1 and there was an agreement to pay the interest amount in default of the repayment of the principal amount. Admittedly, she is not aware in the business transaction between the complainant and the accused and her husband is responsible for business activity. Furthermore, she has not produced books of accounts for the Company though she said she willing to produce the same and no calculation sheet has been filed to show the period of interest and rate of interest and principle amoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the dishonoured cheque to the tune of ₹ 13,44,976/- and the same is taken on file as C.C. No. 355 of 2006 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur and the learned Judge had transferred the said C.C. to the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court No. I, Egmore, Chennai and renumbered as C.C. No. 3201 of 2012. 5. After the Trial, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court No. I, has convicted the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay cheque amount of ₹ 13,44,976/- as compensation within a period of one moth from that day, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wn Branch for a sum of ₹ 5,13,994/- [Rupees Five Lakhs Thirteen Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety Four only] (iii) Cheque bearing No. 614380, dated 21.03.2006 drawn on Canara Bank, Park Town Branch for a sum of ₹ 1,02,220/- [Rupees One Lakh Two Thousand Two Hundred Twenty only] (iv) Cheque bearing No. 614381, dated 11.03.2006, drawn on Canara Bank, Park Town Branch for ₹ 6,47,632/- [Rupees Six Lakhs Forty Seven Thousand Six Hundred Thirty Two only] d) The first two cheques were issued for repaying the advance amount and the remaining cheques were issued for interest for the dues. e) After two months, all the cheques were presented for collection before the Indian Bank, Purasawakkam and they were dishonored a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the proprietary, this Court does not find any legal ground to sustain the same. 10. Further, the accused was duly represented as Proprietary of the Firm and he signed as a Letter of Authority, since he is a Proprietary of the Firm, the complaint is maintainable, in view of the settled position in connection with the Proprietary of the Firm. Since, the signature in Exs. P1 to P4/cheques are not disputed as that of the accused and the same were dishonoured. The private complainant is entitled for presumption under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and it is for the accused to rebut the same. 11. To rebut the presumption, it is not necessary for the accused to get into witness box or adduced any evidence. It is always open ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 06 for a sum of ₹ 1,02,220/- and cheque dated 11.03.2006 for a sum of ₹ 6,47,632/- were issued to her towards interest on the said advance amounts. 14. Further, PW1 had admitted in her cross examination that she is the proprietor of CPK Leathers . As the business transaction the accused has to owe a sum of ₹ 13,45,000/- to her firm and her husband C.P. Siva Arasu is responsible for her business activities and she is not aware about the business transactions. Further, she admitted that she did not produced the Books of Accounts of her own company to prove the case of lending money to the accused and she had not explained to the Court that what was the period of interest and how to calculate the cheques pertains to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... probablise the suggestive case to the preponderance of probability level that passing of consideration is doubtful as claimed by PW1. 18. In view of the suggestive case being made probable by the accused, it is the duty of the private complainant to prove the existence of the legally enforceable debt. As stated supra neither the person responsible in business activity namely her husband viz., C.P. Siva Arasu, was examined before the Court nor any account books have been produced to show that initially an amount of ₹ 81,130/- was paid to Sun Shine Trading Company and ₹ 5,13,994/- is due for Macsun India limited. Hence, the Lower Appellate Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the after rebuttal of presumption by the ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
