9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 548X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e defence taken by the accused, in order to substantiate the said evidence, the documents relied on by him are not sufficient to hold that the stand taken by the revision petitioner is genuine one. Once the signature found in the cheque is admitted, the trial Court ought to have presumed that the cheque was issued for legally enforceable debt. Without seeing any perversity or gross injustice in the judgments rendered by the trial Court and the first appellate Court, this Court cannot interfere with the findings rendered by the Courts below - Since the prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is quasi civil in nature, the Parliament has thought it fit to permit compounding of the offence under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Instead of sending the accused to prison, this Court is of the view that if the accused deposits ₹ 8,00,000/- towards the cheque amount and another sum of ₹ 1,10,500/- as compensation and costs to the credit of C.C. No. 175 of 2013, before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Musiri, on or before 03.01.2022, the Magistrate shall disburse the amount to the complainant if he is alive or to his legal heirs and c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the respondent to the petitioner on 30.10.2013. Having received the same under acknowledgement [Ex. P.4], the accused did not send any reply in respect of allegation levelled against him. Thereafter, the respondent filed the said private complaint. 6. In order to prove his case, on the side of the respondent/complainant, the complainant himself was examined as P.W. 1 and four documents were exhibited as Exs. P.1 to P.4. (i) Ex. P.1 is the disputed cheque. (ii) Ex. P.2 is the return memo issued by the State Bank of India, Kattuputhur Branch. (iii) Ex. P.3 is the legal notice issued by the complainant's Advocate. (iv) Ex. P.4 is the acknowledgment card, dated 11.12.2013. 7. When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused, he denied the same as false. On the other hand, the revision petitioner/accused himself was examined as D.W. 1 and he states that before the occurrence, both himself and the complainant are having loan transactions, wherein he paid ₹ 2,10,000/- to the complainant, for redeeming the gold jewels pledged by him. Thereafter, the complainant has also received ₹ 95,000/- from the accused by pledging gold jewel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same was obtained by the complainant by coercion with the help of Police Officers attached to the Kattuputhur Police Station. The learned counsel would further submit that Ex. D.2, which is a file relates to Petition No. 150 of 2013, probabilise the fact that the cheque in question was obtained only in the Police Station and accordingly, it is necessary to hold that the cheque in question was not issued to discharge the legally enforceable debt. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would stoutly oppose this revision. It is the contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that the evidence recorded on the side of the petitioner, does not prove prima facie case in favour of the accused and probabilise his defence. In order to escape from the liability, the accused contended as above and therefore, the same cannot be taken into account for accepting the case of the petitioner. 12. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 13. It is the main contention of the revision petitioner that the cheque pertains to this case was obtained by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the evidence given by D.W. 1 to D.W. 3 may be in support of the defence taken by the accused, in order to substantiate the said evidence, the documents relied on by him are not sufficient to hold that the stand taken by the revision petitioner is genuine one. 15. At this juncture, in the judgment reported in 2021 (2) CTC 357 [Kalamani Tex and others Vs. P. Balasubramanian], our Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows:- The Statute mandates that once the signature(s) of an Accused on the Cheque/negotiable instrument are established, then these 'reverse onus' clauses become operative. In such a situation, the obligation shifts upon the Accused to discharge the presumption imposed upon him. This point of law has been crystallized by this Court in Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel v. State of Gujarat, 2019 (2) MWN (Cr.) DCC 26 (SC): 2019 (18) SCC 106, p.18, in the following words: In the case at hand, even after purportedly drawing the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act, the Trial Court proceeded to question the want of evidence on the part of the Complainant as regards the source of funds for advancing loan to the Accused and want of examination of relevant Wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al, unless it is shown that the findings on facts arrived at by the Courts below are on the face on it perverse. 19. Therefore, without seeing any perversity or gross injustice in the judgments rendered by the trial Court and the first appellate Court, this Court cannot interfere with the findings rendered by the Courts below. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision is dismissed and the judgment of the trial Court, which was confirmed by the first appellate Court, is confirmed, 20. Since the prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is quasi civil in nature, the Parliament has thought it fit to permit compounding of the offence under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Instead of sending the accused to prison, this Court is of the view that if the accused deposits ₹ 8,00,000/- towards the cheque amount and another sum of ₹ 1,10,500/- as compensation and costs to the credit of C.C. No. 175 of 2013, before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Musiri, on or before 03.01.2022, the Magistrate shall disburse the amount to the complainant if he is alive or to his legal heirs and compound the offence. If the amount of ₹ 9,10,500/- is not dep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
