SRI A.N.ILLUR, PROPRIETOR, M/S.SAPTHAGIRI ENTERPRISES vs M/S.PHALADA AGRO RESEARCH FOUNDATION PVT. LTD.

Though this matter is listed for admission, with the consent of both sides, it is taken up for final disposal.

This petition is preferred by the

petitioner/accused challenging the legality and

correctness of the judgment and order of conviction dated 29.03.2011 passed in C.C.No.1446/2006 by the XX Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Benglauru City, so also, the judgment and order dated 26.08.2013 passed by the FTC-XV, Bengaluru in Crl.A.282/2011.

The respondent/complainant filed the complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before the trial Court against the petitioner/accused alleging that the petitioner committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act. Both sides led their evidence and produced the documents before the trial Court; the trial Court after considering the materials placed before it, ultimately convicted the petitioner/accused for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act. Being aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner preferred the appeal before the first appellate Court, which came to be dismissed confirming the judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial Court. Hence, revision petitioner is before this Court.

Brief facts of the complainant''s case before the trial Court are that, complainant is a registered Company engaged in the business of manufacture and distribution of manure and allied products and the accused is a customer of the complainant''s company. It is the contention of the complainant company, as per the orders placed by the accused, the complainant had supplied Manure and allied products on credit basis under various credit bills to the accused and the accused was due to Rs.1,59,710/- towards the credit purchases and towards discharge of part of the outstanding dues, the accused issued a cheque bearing No.779182 dated 5.7.2004 for a sum Rs.90,888/- drawn on syndicate Bank, Muddebihal Branch. When the said cheque was presented, it was dishonoured with an endorsement ''Insufficient Funds''. Inspite of intimating the accused, he has failed to pay the said amount. Hence, legal notice was issued and the same was served on the accused person, but neither he replied nor paid the amount.

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

Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments has submitted that firstly P.W.1, who has been examined on the side of the complainant, was neither an authorized person nor having the personal knowledge about the transaction. It is also his contention that even according to the complainant side, the transaction took place at Hubli Office and hence, the Court at Bengaluru is not having territorial jurisdiction to entertain the matter and to grant the relief. He has further submitted that it is the defence of the accused that he issued the cheque to one Chandrashekar, the Area Manager, for the purpose of security and the accused person never purchased the Manure on credit basis and he is not at all due to the respondent/complainant and these material aspects were not at all appreciated by the Courts below. Hence, he has submitted that matter requires consideration in this petition.

So far as the aspect of territorial jurisdiction is concerned, he has relied upon the decision of Hon''ble Apex Court reported in II (2006) SLT 496 in the case of Musaraf Hossain Khan v. Bhagheeratha Engg. Ltd. & Ors. Hence, he has submitted that the said decision is aptly made applicable to the facts of the present case.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent, during the course of his arguments has submitted that, to show that the revision petitioner was purchasing the Manure and allied products from the complainant Company, documents are produced and the confirmation of accounts were also produced before the trial Court. He has also contended that to discharge part of the due amount, revision petitioner issued the cheque and when it was presented, same was dishonoured. He has also submitted that prior to filing of the complaint, legal notice was issued, even though it was served on the petitioner/accused, he has not sent any reply to the said notice. He has further submitted that though it is the defence of the petitioner/accused that he has given the cheque to one Chandrashekar for the purpose of security, but the petitioner has not placed any acceptable and trustworthy material to accept his contention. He has further submitted that the concurrent findings of the Courts below are in accordance with the materials placed on record. Both the Courts have considered the matter at length and came to the right conclusion. Therefore, there is no illegality committed by the Courts below. He has also submitted that this Court cannot in this revision petition go into the factual aspect unless it is shown that grave illegality has been committed by the Courts below. Hence, submitted that there is no merit in this petition and same is to be rejected.

I have perused the grounds urged in the petition, judgment and orders passed by the Courts below, so also, the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner and considered the oral submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides at the Bar.

Looking to the materials placed on record and the findings of the Courts below, it is observed that the signature of the accused on Ex.P-1 has been admitted, but it is the contention of the petitioner/accused that it was not given to the complainant Company, it is given to one Chandrashekar. Admittedly, said Chandrashekar was not examined before the trial Court to explain about the contention of the petitioner and when the accused has admitted his signature on the instrument, the Courts below have drawn the initial presumption in favour of the complainant as per Section 118 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act and the burden is on the accused to rebut the said presumption.

I have also noticed from the judgment of the trial Court that so far as accounts regarding supply of Manure and allied products to the petitioner/accused is concerned, confirmation of the accounts and other documents were produced as per Exs.P-6 and P-7. On the basis of the documents produced on the side of the complainant, the Courts below have observed that the transaction regarding supply of Manure and allied products is supported by the documentary evidence as well as oral evidence of P.W.1.

As I have already observed above, regarding the contention of the accused person, both the Courts below have came to the conclusion that he has not placed any acceptable material to prove his defence, even with regard to the letter dated 05.02.2003 produced as per Ex.D-1 is concerned, it is the finding of the Courts below that the said document is created by the accused for the purpose of his defence. In this connection, the Courts below have observed in their judgment that if that was the truth of the matter, then nothing prevented the accused to send the reply when he has already received the notice before initiation of the proceedings before the trial Court. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner in not sending reply to the legal notice also matters much in this case, as it has been observed by both the Courts below.

Regarding the aspect of territorial jurisdiction is concerned, I have perused the materials placed on record, so also the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the materials placed on record shows that the transaction started from the office at Bengaluru and then the materials were supplied. Therefore, the Courts below have observed that the Courts below are having jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in view of the materials placed on record.

It is rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant that this is a revision petition and the first appellate Court is the last Court regarding the factual aspects are concerned; and the first appellate Court also re-appreciated entire materials and ultimately dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and order of the trial Court. Therefore, looking to the materials placed on record, I do not find any illegality in the judgment and orders passed by the Courts below to interfere into the same. The petitioner has not made out his case. Hence, there is no merit in this petition, accordingly, same is hereby rejected.