LAWS(MAD)-2004-2-107

SURYAKANT V KANAKIA Vs. V MUTHUKUMARAN

Decided On February 10, 2004
SURYAKANT V.KANAKIA Appellant
V/S
V.MUTHUKUMARAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Complainant in C.C.No.9577 of 1991 is the Appellant. Aggrieved over the order of acquittal of the Respondent / Accused under Sec.138 Negotiable Instruments Act by the V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai (by judgment dated 22.03.1993), the Appellant / Complainant has preferred this appeal.

(2.) Relevant facts for disposal of this appeal could briefly be stated thus:- On 18.03.1991 the Accused has availed a loan of Rs.20,000/from the Complainant. He has agreed to repay the same with interest at the rate of 30% per annum. For repayment of the said amount, Accused had issued 11 cheques on various dates between May 1991 - August 1991 drawn on Standard Chartered Bank, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai. When the cheques were presented for collection in UCO Bank on 30 .08.1 991 by the Complainant, all cheques were dishonoured on 02.09.1991 with endorsement 'payments stopped by the drawer'. The Complainant sent a legal notice dated 05.09.1991. The Accused received the same on 09.09.1991. But he has not made arrangements to repay the loan. The Complainant has filed the complaint under Sec.138 Negotiable Instruments Act for nine cheques.

(3.) The Accused appeared before the trial Court. Copy of the complaint was served upon him and gist of charge was explained to him. On being questioned, the Accused denied the charge framed against him. To substantiate the charge against the Accused, Suryakant V. Kanakia / Complainant was examined as P.W.1 and six documents were marked on the Complainant's side. The Accused was examined under Sec.313 Crl. P.C. about the incriminating evidence and circumstances. During questioning under Sec.313 Crl.P.C., he has stated that he had borrowed only Rs.10,000/- and he repaid the same and got back two cheques from the Complainant out of 11 cheques given by him to the Complainant. The Accused also stated that he had sent reply to the notice on 20.09.199 1. Further case of the Accused was that the Complainant deliberately did not return the documents pertaining to the loan.