B. Nanjegowda vs K.R. Mallegowda

N. Ananda, J.—Heard learned counsel for parties. There are concurrent findings of the courts below that respondent (complainant) has proved that petitioner (accused) has committed an offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

This court while exercising revisional jurisdiction u/s 401 Cr.P.C., does not sit as a court second appeal. This court can interfere with the impugned judgment if the courts below have committed glaring errors in appreciation of evidence or errors of law resulting manifest injustice to petitioner.

The petitioner while not disputing issuance of cheque had made an unsuccessful attempt to establish that he had issued the cheque as security for installation of transformer in the land of the complainant.

It is established from the evidence on record that petitioner had received a sum of Rs. 25,000/- from the complainant with an assurance to install the transformer in the land of complainant in the month of June 2005. He has failed to install the transformer. On repeated demands, he had issued a cheque for Rs. 25,000/-, which on presentation was dishonored.

The trial court as also the I-appellate court on appreciation of evidence have disbelieved the evidence of accused that he had issued the cheque as security.

It is not disputed and cannot be disputed that petitioner (accused) is an Electrical Contractor. He had undertaken the work of installation of Electrical transformer in the land of the complainant. In the circumstances, there was no occasion for the petitioner to issue a blank cheque to the complainant as security. It appears the petitioner has taken this defence that he had given cheque as security for the sake of defence which we often come across. There are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment. The Revision petition is dismissed.