Govindareddy vs M/s. Tailor Made Exports

N. Ananda, J.—The courts below have held the petitioner guilty of an offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ''the Act''). Therefore, he is before this court. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner (accused) and learned counsel for respondent (complainant).

This court while exercising revisional jurisdiction u/s 401 Cr.P.C., does not sit as a court of 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 courts below on proper appreciation of evidence have recorded following findings:-- The petitioner (accused) is the landlord of premises situate at premises bearing No. 57/2, Cholanayakanahalli, Hebbal, Bangalore. The petitioner (accused) had let out premises to respondent (complainant) under lease deed dated 13.09.2002. The petitioner (accused) had received advance in a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/-, at the time of entering into lease agreement dated 13.09.2002. Thereafter, there was supplementary agreement under which petitioner (accused) received another sum of Rs. 4,00,000/-. The respondent (complainant) vacated the premises. The petitioner returned part of lease amount in cash and issued a cheque for remaining sum of Rs. 3,00,000/-, which on presentation was dishonoured. The legal notice caused by complainant was not received by petitioner. The cross-examination of PW1 would reveal that petitioner (accused) has not disputed lease transactions and receipt of advance amount from respondent (complainant). The petitioner has made an unsuccessful attempt to establish that he had issued cheque as a security towards some other transaction. The petitioner (accused) has failed to rebut evidence adduced by respondent (complainant). The petitioner (accused) has failed to rebut presumption available u/s 139 of the Act.

There are no reasons to interfere with the concurring findings recorded by the courts below. The revision petition is dismissed.