Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 25
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.
Shanmugavel - Appellant
Versus
M.Albert - Respondent
CRL.A.(MD)No.323 of 2009
Decided on : 25-01-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.V.Kathirvelu, Senior Counsel.
For the Respondent: Mr.R.Anand
The significance of documentary evidence and witness credibility in establishing the validity of financial transactions.
Headnote:
Hand Loan - Criminal Appeal - No.797792, dated 03.05.2002, payable at Valliyoor, Tranvancore State Bank Branch - The court discussed the provisions related to hand loan, cheque issuance, and documentary evidence. The court emphasized the importance of documentary evidence and the credibility of witness testimony in establishing the validity of the hand loan and cheque issuance. The court also considered the significance of discrepancies in the signature and writing on the cheque in determining the credibility of the complainant's case.
Fact of the Case:
The private complainant alleged that the accused borrowed a sum of Rs.3,00,000 and issued a cheque, which was later dishonored. The accused denied receiving the loan and claimed a chit transaction with the complainant's business partner.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the complainant's case to be doubtful based on the lack of documentary evidence and contradictions in witness testimony. The court concluded that the accused's suggestive case was more probable, leading to the order of acquittal.
Issues: Dispute over hand loan and cheque issuance, credibility of witness testimony, and documentary evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of documentary evidence and the credibility of witness testimony in establishing the validity of the hand loan and cheque issuance. The court also considered the significance of discrepancies in the signature and writing on the cheque in determining the credibility of the complainant's case.
Final Decision: The Criminal Appeal was dismissed, and the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court was confirmed.
1. The unsuccessful private complainant is the appellant herein. He has filed this Criminal Appeal against the judgment passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor in C.C.No.71 of 2003, dated 08.12.2008, wherein the accused was ordered for acquittal.
2. The case of the private complainant before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor is that on 01.04.2002, the accused came to the house of the private complainant and requested him to give a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Only) and the complainant has given the same. Since the accused is the friend of the complainant, he has not insisted him to execute any document and the accused has also given assurance that he would return the amount within one month, but the accused has not discharged his liability as agreed by him. On 02.05.2002, the complainant has gone to the house of the accused and the accused has given a cheque bearing No.797792, dated 03.05.2002, payable at Valliyoor, Tranvancore State Bank Branch. When the cheque has been presented for collection, the same was returned on 13.05.2002 with an endorsement “Account Closed”. Therefore, the complainant has given a statutory notice on 23.05.2002 to the accused and the accused has received the same on 27.05.2002. Even after receipt of the notice, he has not discharged the liability and also has not given any reply to the notice.
3. During the trial, the private complainant has examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.5. The respondent / accused made a suggestive case that the accused has given three cheques to one Anandaraj, who was the business partner of the private complainant herein and due to misunderstanding arose between the said Anandaraj and the accused, one of the cheque out of three cheque leafs bearing No.797791 was presented by the said Anandaraj and the same was dishonored on 08.06.2000. Thereafter, he setting up his business partner had instituted this false case and according to the accused, he does not know the private complainant. To substantiate his suggestive case, he examined one Jeyaraman, Branch Manager of his Banker as D.W.1 and one Bellarmine as D.W.2.
4. During the cross-examination of P.W.1, it is specifically suggested that the private complainant P.W.1 does not have any sufficient means to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to him and he disputed the means to pay such an amount as loan. As stated supra, the accused has taken an unique defence that he never received any hand loan on 01.04.2002 from the private complainant and he never issued any cheque in question to the complainant on 03.05.2002. It is the specific suggestive case of the defence that he had chit transaction with the business partner of the private complainant viz., Anandaraj with whom he deposited three leafs and one of the cheques was deposited by the said Anandaraj himself, which was dishonored. The private complainant has lodged the present false complaint.
5. After analyzing the oral and documentary evidence adduced before the trial Court, the trial Court has given a specific finding that except the ipse dixit of P.W.1 in the witness box, there is no document produced or any witness is examined to prove the alleged handing over of the hand loan of Rs.3,00,000/- and in the cross examination, P.W.1 has deposed that since the accused himself did not want any document evidencing such a payment, no document has been created evidencing such loan transaction.
6. This Court is unable to accept the said contention for more than one reason. The loan is for the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- in the year 2002. Hence, the answer given by P.W.1 that no document is necessary for evidencing the money transaction only as per direction of borrower, is only a self serving statement to safeguard himself from the suggestive case.
7. It remains to be stated that while P.W.1 in the cross-examination has categorically admitted that the brother of the accused knows about the handing over of the loan exchange of amount by way of hand
