9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 40X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he said loan amount, the accused issued a cheque bearing No. 251909 dated 18.10.2010 drawn on State Bank of India, Chikkamagalur branch, for a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- in favour of the complainant therein. However, when the said cheque was presented for its realization, the same returned unpaid with the bankers memo 'Account Closed'. In spite of service of notice upon the accused demanding payment of the cheque amount, since the accused did not meet the demand, the complainant was constrained to institute criminal case against him in the Trial Court in C.C. No. 1051/2011 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. 3. The summary of the case of the complainant in the Trial Court in C.C. No. No. 1049/2011 was that the accused who was a person known to him for the purpose of his business improvement had availed a loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- from him and towards the repayment of the said amount, he issued a cheque bearing No. 251914 dated 29.11.2010 for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Chikkamagalur branch. The said cheque when presented for its realization by the complainant, was returned unpaid with the bankers endorsement 'Account Closed'. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oneous, warranting interference at the hands of this court? (2) Whether judgment of conviction and order of sentence impugned in Criminal Revision Petition No. 220/2018 is perverse, illegal or erroneous, warranting interference at the hands of this court? 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner in his argument in both the matters, submitted that, he would not deny or dispute that the accused was the drawer of the cheques in both the matters and that both those cheques returned unpaid with the bankers shara of closure of the account of the drawer. However, he contended that in Criminal Revision Petition No. 219/2018, there was no loan transaction between the parties. The notice alleged to have been sent by the complainant was not served upon the accused because there is variation in the signature on the postal acknowledgement. He submitted that the subject matter cheque in the Criminal Revision Petition No. 219/2018 was issued to Sri. D.T. Patel who is the complainant in Criminal Revision Petition No. 220/2018 along with two more cheques as a security but not towards repayment of any loan. However, the said Sri. D.T. Patel misused those cheques by presenting one cheque through his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, complainants have contended that they have sent legal notices to the accused demanding the repayment of the cheque amount. However, the accused contends that the said notice has not been served upon him since signatures found on the acknowledgement varies to that of the drawer in exhibit P-1. No doubt, from a naked eye comparison, the signature of the recipient in the postal acknowledgement card appears to be different than the signature of the drawer of the cheque at exhibit P-1. However, it cannot be ignored of the fact that it is not the contention of the accused that the notices were sent to a wrong address. Thus, the notices which were sent under Registered Post Acknowledgement Due to the correct addresses of the accused have been delivered in the place of the addressee. Merely because the signature on the acknowledgement card appears to be at variance compared to the one in the cheques at exhibit P-1, by that itself, it cannot be held that there was no issuance of notice by the complainant to the accused. Further, there was no suggestion made to PW.1s' in their cross-examination from the accused side. Moreover, in both the cases, the complainants apart from sending t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y on the trust and personal belief. Though Sri. D.T. Patel as PW.1 in his cross-examination admitted that the complainant in the other case by name Sri. E. Lokesh is a person known to him who stated that he is not his friend. He also stated that he does not know about the alleged financial transaction between the said Sri. E. Lokesh and the accused. The witness categorically denied a suggestion that the cheques in question were issued to him by the accused as a security for an advance of Rs. 50,000/- made by him to the accused for the supply of timber. However, he retained those cheques without returning them even after deducting the said amount of Rs. 50,000/- in instalments in the bills payable to the accused. In this manner, the defence of the accused was only in the form of oral suggestions made to the complainant Sri. D.T. Patel. In his cross-examination, however, the said witness has not admitted those suggestion as true. Except making the oral suggestion, the accused has not taken any steps to place any other material in support of his contention nor he entered witness box to lead his evidence. 18. Even in the cross-examination of the complainant Sri. E. Lokesh in C.C. No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... suggested to the witness that the cheques in question were collected by not just Sri. D.T. Patel but by all the three i.e., Sri. D.T. Patel, his brother Sri. Shanthi Bhai and Sri. E. Lokesh. There is no explanation available anywhere as to why should the accused give blank cheques to all the three persons i.e., both the complainants herein and one Sri. Shanthi Bhai when even according to accused, the alleged transaction of a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was only between himself and said Sri. D.T. Patel. Therefore, the defence of the accused creates a doubt in the mind of the court. Secondly, in the cross-examination of Sri. D.T. Patel, a suggestion was made from the accused side that the said complainant had deducted the said sum of Rs. 50,000/- between the years 2007 to 2010. However, the witness has not admitted the said suggestion as true. Had really the said Sri. D.T. Patel deducted the alleged sum of Rs. 50,000/- between the years 2007 to 2010, the accused ought to have maintained some records in that regard, at least the details about the date, time and the amount deducted, etc. Thus, without placing any such details or materials, merely making a suggestion to a witness that the sai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
