IMPORTANT POINT
Cheque issued in order to clear balance sale consideration is for a legally enforceable debt.

C.S. Karnan, J.— The revision petitioner/appellant/accused has preferred the present revision in Cri. R.C.No.1703 of 2004 against the judgment made in C.A.No.415 of 2003, on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, confirming the conviction and sentence made in C.C.No.1894 of 1998, on the file of V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.

2. The respondent/complainant’s case is as follows:

The accused had purchased lands belonging to the complainant situated at Payanur Village, Tiruthani Taluk, for a total sale consideration of a sum of Rs.3,70,350. The accused paid a sum of Rs. l,20,350 as an advance and agreed to pay the balance of Rs.2,50,000 in due course. As a part payment of the said balance, the accused had issued 10 cheques, out of the 10 cheques, three cheques bearing Nos.298696, 298697 and 298698 dated 5.7.1997, 5.8.1997 and 5.9.1997, each for a sum of Rs.25,000, drawn on Central Bank of India, Madras Main Branch, to and in favour of the complainant was presented for collection through the complainant’s bankers, viz.; Indian Overseas Bank, Periyan Nagar Branch on 27.12.1997. It were returned unpaid with an endorsement of “payment stopped by drawer” vide return memo dated 29.12.1997 and the same was intimated the complainant on 30.12.1997. The complainant issued statutory notice to the accused on 9.1.1998 which was received by the accused on 13.1.1998. The accused sent a reply notice, dated 21.1.1998, making false allegations. Thereafter, the complainant had filed the case before the V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.

3. On being questioned, the accused pleaded not guilty and hence trial was conducted. On the complainant’s side, two witnesses were examined and seventeen documents were marked as Exs.Pl to P17, viz., Ex.Pl power of attorney given to PW1 to adduce evidence, Ex.P2 letter given by accused to complainant regarding payment of Rs. 1,20,350 to complainant, Exs.P3, P4 and P5 cheque (series in three in numbers), Ex.P6 letter given by accused to complainant requesting him not to deposit the cheques at bank, Ex.P7 lawyer’s notice dated 18.6.1997, Ex. P8 acknowledgment card, Ex.P9 Deposit challan for receipt of cheques, Exs. P10, P11 and Pl2 return memos, Ex.PI3 debit advice, Ex.P14 lawyer’s notice sent by the complainant to the accused dated 9.1.1998, Ex.P15 reply notice of accused, Ex.PI6 power of attorney given to PW2, Ex.P17 bank account statement of accused. On the side of the accused, one witness was examined and seven documents were marked as Exs. R1 to R7, viz., Ex.R1 complaint given by complainant against accused at the Central Crime Branch Police, Ex.R2 notice sent by the police to the wife of the PW1, Exs.R3 to R7 document showing registration of sale deed on 20.11.1996, before the Sub Court for land in Doc.Nos.1778/96, 1736/96, 1779/96, 1735/96 and 1737/96.

4. PW1, the husband of the complainant had adduced evidence that he is the power of attorney holder of the complainant and had marked Ex.Pl, the power of attorney. PW1 had adduced evidence which is corroborative of the statements made in the complaint and in support of his evidence, he had marked the exhibits listed as Exs.Pl to P13.

5. PW2, Mr. Subramanian had adduced evidence that he is the Assistant Manager of Central Bank of India, Madras Main Branch and had marked the power of attorney given to him by his bank as Ex.P16. He deposed that when the cheques marked as Exs.P3, P4 and P5 were presented in their bank for collection, it were returned with an endorsement of “payment stopped by drawer” through return memos marked as Exs.P10, P11 and P12.

6. RW1, Kulasekaran had adduced evidence that he is the Sub Registrar at the Sub-Court, Thiruvalankadu and the sale deeds in Doc. Nos.1778/96, 1736/96, 1779/96, 1735/96 and 1737/96 had been registered on 20.11.1996 and had been marked as document as per Exs.R3 to R7. He deposed that the Vendor’s name in the said documents have been mentioned as Amsa Krishnan and that she had not