9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 699X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ness. The trial Court has opined that, summoning the Bank Managers to give evidence is not necessary, when there is nothing to indicate that the Bank Managers refused to given the bank statements of the accused. The dismissal of the petitions filed under Section 254(2) Cr.P.C is also under challenge in the third set of Criminal Original Petitions. This Court is of the view that, when the complaint lack details about the manner in which the liability arose to issue the subject cheques and when the complainants admit that they are income tax assesses and they maintain bank accounts through which portion of the loan amount was transferred, then for proper appreciation of the facts can be done, only if the witnesses are recalled and confronted why they contradict their earlier admission and why they refuse to produce the documents as sought for by the accused. Expecting the accused to rebut the presumption, withhold the documents necessary for the proof of foundational facts will be unfair. Hence, the impugned order dismissing petitions filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C and Section 91 of Cr.P.C, dated 27/09/2023 is set aside. This Court confirms the order of the trial Court dismissing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ). 3. For easy reference, the details of the calender case number, name of the complainant, name of the accused and the cheque amount is tabulated below : - Sl. No. C.C. Nos. Petitioner/ Accused Complainant Cheque No. and date Cheque amount Rs. 1 9167/19 Everest Blue Metals R.Munirathinam M.Gajedran 476823, Canara Bank, Bommidi dated 09.09.2019 7,75,00,000 2 9233/19 R.Munirathinam M.Gajedran 572724, Indian Bank, Kadathur Branch, dated 13.08.2019 58,00,000 3 616/20 R.Munirathinam M.Gajedran 572725, Indian Bank, Kadathur Branch, dated 03.10.2019 15,00,000 4 623/20 Everest Blue Metals M.Raja M.Gajedran 476827,Canara Bank, Bommidi dated 03.10.2019 10,00,000 5 624/20 Everest Blue Metals M.Raja M.Gajedran 476826,Canara Bank, Bommidi dated 03.10.2019 10,00,000 6 625/20 Everest Blue Metals M.Raja M.Gajedran 476824,Canara Bank, Bommidi dated 03.10.2019 10,00,000 7 626/20 Everest Blue Metals R.Munirathinam M.Raja M.Gajedran 476825,Canara Bank, Bommidi dated 03.10.2019 15,00,000 8 627/20 R.Munirathinam M.Gajedran 938773, Indian bank, Kadathur Branch dated 03.10.2019 12,00,000 9 9166/19 R.Munirathinam G.Rajam 698499, Indian Bank Sillarahalli Branch, dated 09.09.2019 5,50,00,000 10 572/20 R.Mun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gave 20 signed cheques in blank, 13 promissory notes, 22 title deeds in original and 40 signed stamp papers to the complainant-Gajendiran as security. The cheques given as security have been misused and filled up for higher amount, more than the liability as if the accused drawn the cheques in favour of Gajendiran and his family members to discharge the existing liability. 7. Contending that the complaints are silent about the date of advancing the loan and mode of the payment. The source to advance such a huge amount is not disclosed in the complaints The complainants in their respective complaints have mounted the witness box and deposed. In the cross examination, they admit that they are all income tax assesses and they paid part of the loan amount through bank transaction. On completion of examination of complainant's side evidence and questioning the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner/accused has filed a set of petitions under Section 311 Cr.P.C in all the twenty complaints to recall the complainants stating that certain important questions to discredit the witness omitted to be put, hence, they must be recalled. 8. The petitioner/accused in all the twen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ree loan. The accused cannot be deprived of his right to prove the contrary and discharge the reverse burden. 12. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner/accused submitted that, recall of PW-1/complainant will not prejudice nor cause harassment to the complainant. Contrarily, if the witness is not recalled, the accused will be badly prejudiced. His valuable right of defence will be affected. The line of defence cannot be disclosed in the recall petition. The refusal of the complainant to produce their income tax returns and bank account statements contrary to their admission in the chief examination has to be drawn adverse inference against the complainant. The further cross of the complainant in this regard will elucidate that the complaint if bereft of fundamental details and lack of proof for payment. Acceptance of partial liability cannot be a reason to dismiss the petitions to recall the complainant and for the dismissal of the petitions to produce income tax returns and bank statements. 13. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant submitted that after the case posted for arguments, these petitions were filed to recall the witnesses, to produce documents a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atement, after admitting in the cross examination that they are in possession of the income tax returns and bank statements. 17. It is also relevant to note that, after dismissal of these two sets of petitions, one to recall PW-1 and another to produce documents, the petitioner/accused had filed another set of petitions under Section 254(2) Cr.P.C to summon Managers of his Banks, where he maintains his accounts, to prove, how much money really transferred from the complainants into his account. The trail Court had dismissed these petitions also on 03/02/2024 on the ground that these facts can be established by the accused by examining himself as defence witness. The trial Court has opined that, summoning the Bank Managers to give evidence is not necessary, when there is nothing to indicate that the Bank Managers refused to given the bank statements of the accused. The dismissal of the petitions filed under Section 254(2) Cr.P.C is also under challenge in the third set of Criminal Original Petitions. 18. This Court is of the view that, when the complaint lack details about the manner in which the liability arose to issue the subject cheques and when the complainants admit that they ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
