S. Manjunath vs R. Bhaskar

Budihal R.B., J.—This is the petition filed by the petitioner/accused, being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order passed by the Court below.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/accused and also of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/complainant.

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused during the course of arguments made the submission that the accused has not at all borrowed any amount from the complainant nor he has issued any cheque in favour of the complainant. The counsel made the submission that as the brother of the complainant was running the chit business and the accused person was also the member of the chit, as requested by the brother of the complainant, he issued two cheques. Counsel submitted this aspect has not been properly appreciated by the Trial Court and the Trial Court wrongly held that the complainant established his case that the accused person borrowed the amount of Rs. 2,20,000/- and he has issued two cheques in favour of the complainant. Hence, he submitted that the appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence by the Trial Court is not proper. Hence, the revision petition may be admitted and it may be posted for hearing.

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/complainant during the course of arguments made the submission with regarding the contention raised by the revision petitioner/accused that he has issued the cheque in favour of the brother of the complainant and not directly to the complainant is not at all established with cogent and satisfactory material evidence before the Trial Court. Learned counsel also made the submission that before filing the complaint, legal notice was issued. Inspite of service of legal notice, the revision petitioner/accused has not at all issued reply. Hence, submitted that whatever the contentions raised by the accused person before the Trial Court, it has been held that there was no supporting material placed by the accused person. Hence, counsel submitted that the Trial Court, after considering the entire materials on record ultimately convicted the accused and when the Judgment was challenged before the First Appellate Court, the First Appellate Court also confirmed the Judgment passed by the Trial Court. Hence, submitted that there is no merit in the revision petition.

I have perused the Judgment and Orders passed by the Courts below. The grounds urged in the revision petition and also considering the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/accused. Perusing the Judgment of the Trial Court, after the conclusion of the trial, it was established by the complainant that the signature on the cheque is of the accused person and the cheques were produced from the custody of the complainant before the Trial Court. If at all, it is the contention of the revision petitioner that he has not issued the cheque to the complainant nor borrowed the amount and he issued the cheque to the brother of the complainant, certainly he could have taken the steps against the brother of the complainant by filing a criminal complaint or by filing a civil case against the brother of the complainant. But no such steps were taken by the accused persons. Even he has not explained before the Trial Court how the complainant came to the possession of the instrument, which he has produced before the Trial Court. When the cheque bears the signature, admittedly of the revision petitioner/accused, then the legal presumption under Section 118-(a) and also under Section 139 of the N.I. Act will arise and it is burden on the part of the accused person to rebut the said presumption by way of taking plausible explanation and proving the said explanation with cogent material. No such steps have been taken by the revision petitioner in this particular case and discussing about all the materials placed before the Trial Court, ultimately, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that the complainant was able to prove with satisfactory material, the accused borrowing the amount and issuing the cheque in favour of the complainant. Therefore, no fault can be found with the Judgment and Order passed by the Trial Court. When the revision petitioner challenged the Judgment and Order of conviction before the First Appellate Court, the First Appellate Court re-appreciated the entire material and ultimately dismissed the appeal. Looking to the materials placed on record and also the grounds urged in the revision petition, no case has been made out that the Judgments and Orders passed by the Courts below are illegal. Accordingly, revision petition is rejected.