9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 1581X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e accused failed to disprove the allegation that the complainant has no source of income to lend the money. Further, taking into account the failure of the accused to give reply to the statutory notice, the trial Court rightly concluded that the respondent/complainant proved the legally enforceable debt or liability, whereas the petitioner/accused failed to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the Act - the trial Court, keeping in mind the evidence available on record and also considering the decided cases, convicted the petitioner/accused and sentenced him for the offence under Section 138 of the Act. This Court finds no reason much less valid reason to interfere with the concurrent findings so rendered by the Courts below. Furthe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nding the due, but he neither paid back the money nor sent any reply. Hence, the respondent/complainant has no other option except to file the private complaint, which culminated in S.T.C. No. 572 of 2010 before the trial Court. 3. Before the trial Court, the complainant examined herself as P.W. 1 and marked Exs. P.1 to P.4 documents, while the revision petitioner/accused examined himself as D.W. 3, besides examining D.Ws. 1 and 2 and marking four documents as Exs. D.1 to D.4. 4. Upon detailed appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, the Judicial Magistrate No. I, Erode, convicted the petitioner/accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and sentenced him to unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is signature; (ii) the complainant has no source of income to lend such a huge amount; and (iii) the subject cheque was stolen by the complainant. 9. However, the Trial Court has held that the accused has not chosen to get expert opinion and merely alleged that his signature was forged and thus, he failed to discharge his burden of disproving the case of the complainant. It is also held that since there is no complaint given by the accused for the theft of cheque, the allegation of stealing the cheque has no legs to stand. The Trial Court further held that the accused failed to disprove the allegation that the complainant has no source of income to lend the money. Further, taking into account the failure of the accused to give repl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
