Jayamma vs Mangala N.R.

H.P. Sandesh, J

This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

Though the accused led the evidence before the Trial Court by examining herself as D.W.1 and got marked the document Ex.D.1 and also took the defence before the Trial Court that the complainant is a stranger and no such transactions and also no issuance of cheque in favour of the complainant and cheques are lost, but in the cross- examination, categorically admitted that the complainant is her relative and also admitted Ex.P.1 and 2 belongs to her and it bears her signature. She deposes that she is not aware when the cheques are lost and further admits that she has not intimated the bank about missing of the cheques and further deposes that she came to know about misuse of cheque after she received the demand notice. Thereafter also she did not give any complaint against the complainant for misuse of the cheque. Further, she deposes that the police did not receive the complaint for missing of the cheque and instructed her to approach the Court. Further, she has admitted the fact that she had no sufficient balance amount to honour the cheques. These materials were taken note of by the Trial Court in paragraph No.16 considering the defence which was taken by the accused. The Trial Court in paragraph No.18 taken note of the defence in her reply notice marked as Ex.P.7 stating that the complainant is totally stranger to her and both cheques were misused and it was unfilled and she failed to instruct her bank for stop payment. In paragraph No.19 taken note that D.W.1 in her evidence stated that the cheques were signed and given to the son-in-law of P.W.1 to give the same to the banker to avail car loan and the same are missing. But the reply notice did not mention the said assertion of D.W.1 and it does not mention the admission of signatures and all these factors were taken note of by the Trial Court.

The Appellate Court also having re-assessed both oral and documentary evidence available on record, comes to the conclusion that even though defence evidence was led before the Trial Court, there are material contradictions with regard to the evidence of D.W.1 in the chief and so also while cross-examination of P.W.1. While cross-examination of P.W.1, she categorically admitted that the complainant is her relative and in the reply notice and in the chief evidence, it is stated that the complainant is a stranger. Though the cheques were lost, no complaint was given and even intimation was also not given to the bank to stop the payment and no action was taken and even not aware of when the cheques were lost. But the fact is that it is categorically stated that the cheques were given to avail the loan for purchase of the car and these are the materials were taken note of. Under the circumstances, I do not find any ground to admit this revision petition. The scope of revision is very limited and only if the judgment of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court suffers from its correctness and legality, then only revisional jurisdiction can be exercised and considering the reasoning assigned by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court while appreciating the material on record, the said circumstances is not warranted in the case on hand to admit the revision.

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:

ORDER

The revision petition is dismissed.