Smt. Asha Raju vs Lalit Kumar

N. Ananda, J.—There are concurrent findings of courts below that petitioner is guilty of an offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ''the Act''). 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 trial court on appreciation of evidence adduced by respondent (complainant) has held that respondent (complainant) has proved that petitioner (accused) has committed an offence punishable u/s 138 of the Act. The evidence of respondent (complainant) relating to issuance of cheque for discharge of legally recoverable debt has not been controverted. The petitioner (accused) has not rebutted presumption available u/s 139 of the Act. The learned Judge of I-appellate court on re-appreciation of evidence has confirmed the findings recorded by trial court. Thus, on re-appreciation of findings recorded by courts below, I do not find any reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment. Therefore, revision petition is dismissed.