9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 1693X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed by the appellate Court, thereby permitting the accused to adduce additional evidence. It is the case of the accused that he had joined various chits run by the complainant and at that time, the complainant had collected blank cheques and promissory notes which have been misused in this case. In fact, the accused has accepted his signature in the cheque (Ex-P14), but, has taken a stand that he had issued a blank one. As held by the Supreme Court in Bir Singh Vs. Mukesh Kumar [ 2019 (2) TMI 547 - SUPREME COURT ], in view of Section 20 of the NI Act, it is not illegal for the complainant to fill up the cheque. However, the appellate Court has gone deeply into the records of the complainant and has returned a finding that the claim of R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ral dates for about eight years and a total sum of Rs.21,09,000/- was due, towards which, he gave a cheque (Ex-P14) dated 03.02.2003 for a sum of Rs.19,00,000/-; the complainant presented the cheque on 04.02.2003 and it was returned unpaid with the endorsement Account Closed vide bank's return memo (Ex-P15) dated 05.02.2003; therefore, the complainant issued a statutory demand notice (Ex-P17) dated 20.02.2003, for which, the accused issued a reply notice (Ex-P19) dated 27.02.2003 repudiating the debt; since the accused did not comply with the demand, the complainant initiated a prosecution in C.C.No.379 of 2003 before the Judicial Magistrate Court No.VII, Coimbatore, for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated 20.06.2012 in C.A.No.186 of 2010, acquitted the accused, challenging which, the complainant has preferred the present appeal against acquittal. 8. Heard Mr.R.Venkatesh, learned counsel for the complainant and Mr.Venkatraman, learned counsel for the accused. 9. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the accused had not adduced any evidence in the trial Court and had also not given any satisfactory explanation when he was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by the trial Court, whereas, he has used the appellate forum to his advantage by filing documents for the purpose of repudiating the complainant's case and therefore, the order of the appellate Court deserves to be reversed. 10. Per contra, the learned counsel for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce or materials relating to the various factors having some bearing on the question of sentence. The court, while determining the quantum of sentence, acts in an altogether different domain in which facts and factors which operate are of an entirely different order than those which come into play on the question of conviction. Therefore, there is bifurcation of trial as an accused has a right of pre-conviction hearing under Section 234 and secondly, right of pre-sentence hearing under Section 235 of the Code. For pre-conviction hearing, the accused must be well informed as to what the exact prosecution case is and what evidence has been adduced by the prosecution to prove its case. It is for the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... complainant and at that time, the complainant had collected blank cheques and promissory notes which have been misused in this case. In fact, the accused has accepted his signature in the cheque (Ex-P14), but, has taken a stand that he had issued a blank one. As held by the Supreme Court in Bir Singh Vs. Mukesh Kumar3, in view of Section 20 of the NI Act, it is not illegal for the complainant to fill up the cheque. However, the appellate Court has gone deeply into the records of the complainant and has returned a finding that the claim of Rs.21,09,000/- is not supported by the document of the complainant themselves. At this juncture, it may be apposite to extract the discussion portion from the judgment of the appellate Court, which reads ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n prepared. As I said earlier, the respondent is not entitled to claim inflated interest from the one which is agreed. For that purpose the appellant would argue that as per Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbidant Rate of Interest Act, 2003. A person cannot claim interest, above which has been prescribed under the government order G.o.No.406 cooperation 05.07.1997. In respect of unsecured loan the maximum interest will be 12 %. Rate of interest calculated at the rate of 3 % per month per Rs.100/- will works out to 36 % per year. For example if we calculate the interest payable at the rate of 36 % for Rs.1,00,000/- the interest alone works out to Rs.2,16,000/-. When we add the principle amount the total payable amount is Rs.3,16,000/-. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
