C.BALU Vs. N.SARAVANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three appeals arise out of acquittal for the alleged offence under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, between the same parties, Judgments being delivered simultaneously, on the same date, and for the same reasons, are taken up together and disposed of by this common Judgment.

(2.) The case of the complainant is that the complainant is a person doing real estate and also lending monies for interest and is also a contractor. The accused is also a person who is a PWD contractor and also doing real estate business purchasing land and promoting them as residential plots and selling them. Therefore, the accused having acquaintance and transactions for about six years with the complainant. The complainant has lent several lakhs rupees on several occasions as a hand loan and the accused has repaid the same. On the said trust on the accused, on 14/1/2013, the complainant advanced a sum of Rs.50.00 Lakhs, and the accused agreed to repay the same in two monthly installments along with 1% interest per month and two cheques were issued for a sum of Rs.25.00 Lakhs each, post dtd. 25/3/2013 and 1/4/2013. Apart from the above transactions and on two other occasions also, the complainant has an advanced loan for a sum of Rs.40.00 Lakhs during February and another sum of Rs.30.00 Lakhs during March. For each of the transactions, cheques were issued. But, however, when the cheques were presented, they were returned with an endorsement "Account Closed". When three separate legal notices were sent, the accused issued a reply notice with false particulars and accordingly, a rejoinder notice was also sent, and thereafter, the complaints were filed. The complaints were taken on file in STC.No.31 of 2014, STC.No.14 of 2014, and STC.No.22 of 2015.

(3.) In STC.No.31 of 2014, filed towards dishonour of two cheques of Rs.25.00 Lakhs each, the complainant was examined as P.W.1 and one Guruprasad was examined as P.W.2. On behalf of the complainant, and Exs.P-1 to P-14 were marked. Upon being questioned about the material evidence and incriminating circumstances on record, the accused denied the same as false. Thereafter, the accused examined himself as D.W.1 and one Bet Kumar was examined as D.W.2. On behalf of the defence, Exs.D1 and D-2 were marked.