INDU MALHOTRA, J Signature Not Verified The present Special Leave Petitions have been Digitally signed by R NATARAJAN Date 2018.07.31 162234 IST Reason filed against the companymon judgment and order dated 27.09.2013 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Revision Case Nos.
The appellants made demands for re payment of their dues.
The respondent also admitted that the appellant had invested capital in their companycern viz.
The High Court took the view that the burden cast on the respondent accused was only to raise a doubt in the mind of the Court about the nature of the transaction.
The Promissory Note was filled up by DW.2 Mahesh, an employee of R.R. Investments, after the signatures of the respondent were obtained on the same.
The respondent failed to place any material on record to show that he had ever asked for return of the 10 blank cheques, allegedly given by him to the respondent, for seven years.
The respondent failed to give any explanation as to how the Pronote came into possession of the appellant.
The respondent had with mala fide intention issued Stop Payment instructions.
Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 27.09.2013 passed in Criminal Revision Nos.
1.1 These Appeals arise out of two companyplaints filed under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act the N.I. Act filed by the appellants against the respondent for dishonour of two cheques of Rs.37,00,000/ and Rs.14,00,000/ respectively.
The District and Sessions Judge held that the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act was number rebutted by the respondent.
1657 1658 of 2008 before the Madras High Court.
1657 1658 of 2008, the appellant complainants filed the present Special Leave Petitions.
Furthermore, the Sessions Court discarded the evidence adduced by the accused, of DW.2 Mahesh, as being an interested witness, who had falsely stated that he was an employee of R.R. Finances.
It was proved by the companyplainants that there were insufficient funds in the bank account of the respondent at the time of issuance of the cheques.
The Court disbelieved the version of the respondent with respect to the 10 blank cheques issued to the appellant in 1995.
Ltd. being run by the respondent to infuse capital by way of deposits and shares.
2.3 The cheques were presented for encashment on 03.02.2003 by the appellants, which were dishonoured due to Stop Payment instructions issued by the respondent.
The Trial Court found that the respondent had admitted his signatures both on the Pronote and also on the two cheques for Rs.
This was rebutted by two witnesses viz.
M s. Maanihada Tea Factory.
Mrs. V. Mohana, Sr.
Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 26.11.2008 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.
The facts of the case briefly stated are as under 2.1 The appellants submit that they were inducted in Maanihada Tea Produce Company Pvt.
Ltd. under a hire purchase agreement for purchasing a lorry on loan basis.
The High Court held that the Trial Court and the Sessions Court erred in applying the legal principles of standard of proof for the companyplainant to prove their case.
The respondent also issued two cheques on the same date, one for Rs.37,00,000/ in favour of K.Posa Nandhi, and the other for Rs.
That after issuance of numberice, Special Leave Petitions were heard finally.
The High Court recorded that the respondent accused had number denied either the issuance of the cheques, or his signatures on the Pronote and cheques.
14,00,000/ in favour of T.P.Murugan, towards discharge of their liability for the investments made in M s. Maanihada Tea Produce Company.
That even though this loan was re paid in 1996 with interest, the cheques were number returned.
The hearing of the Criminal Revision Petitions proceeded ex parte.
On 07.08.2002, the respondent issued a Promissory Note for Rs.51,00,000/ in favour of K.Posa Nandhi the appellant in the Second Appeal.
PW.2 and PW.4, who were Directors of N.R.R. Finances who deposed that DW.2 was never employed by this Company.
III, Coimbatore.
The Promissory Note records that it was being issued against a loan.
The respondent further companytended that he had issued a letter on 09.11.2002 asking the appellants to return the 10 blank cheques.
37,00,000/ and Rs.14,00,000/ respectively.
The District and Sessions Court affirmed the companyviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court.
The denial was only with regard to the circumstances, the manner and the period during which the cheques were issued.
Leave granted.
III, Coimbatore, the respondent accused filed two Criminal Revision Nos.
1657 and 1658 of 2008.
The respondent was found guilty under S. 138 of the N.I. Act, and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for six months and Fine of Rs.5000/ , failing which, he shall undergo one months R.I. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the respondent accused filed Criminal Appeal Nos.
That after going through the detailed evidence adduced by the parties, the Trial Court held that the Cheques and Pronote were issued for repayment discharge of a lawful debt.
Single Judge accepted the companytention of the respondent that since the cheques and the Pronote were issued on the same date, it companyld only be treated as a security, and was number towards any debt or liability.
The said Promissory Note was number issued in favour of the appellant companyplainants.
2.2 On 24.11.1998, the appellants resigned as Directors of the Company after which the respondent and his son, DW 3, remained incharge of the Company.
437 438 of 2006 before the District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.
By raising a doubt with respect to the circumstances in which the Pronote and cheques were issued, the respondent had discharged the presumption under S. 139 of the N.I. Act.
The appellants submitted that the respondent failed to return their share in the companypany.
That even though the appellants herein companyplainants had initially participated in the proceedings, the present appellant was unrepresented during the final hearing.
The Ld.
With respect to the two cheques which were dishonoured, the respondent companytended that these were amongst 10 blank cheques signed and handed over to the appellant K.Posa Nandhi as security, when he borrowed Rs.5,00,000/ in 1995.
