Sri D. Venkatesh vs Sri M.N. Rammohan

Pradeep D. Waingankar, J.—This Criminal Revision Petition u/s 397 r/w Section 401 of Cr.P.C., is filed to set aside the order dated 22.12.2008 in C.C. No. 21636/2006 on the file of the XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore and to set aside the order dated 18.02.2010 in Criminal Appeal No. 31/2009 on the file of the Fast Track Court-VI, Bangalore City, dismissing the Criminal Appeal and confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence of the petitioner for the offence u/s 138 of N.I. Act. The petitioner herein was the accused before the Magistrate and the respondent was the complainant.

Towards repayment of loan amount of Rs. 35,000/- obtained by the accused from the complainant on 07.01.2005, the accused issued a cheque for Rs. 35,000/- dated 11.11.2005 drawn on Canara Bank. On presentation of the cheque by the complainant through his banker Indian Bank, Chamarajpet, the cheque came to be dishonoured for the reasons "insufficient funds". As such, the complainant issued a legal notice to the accused informing the dishonour of the cheque and calling upon him to pay the cheque amount. The accused, though served with the notice, has neither replied nor made payment of the cheque amount. The complaint came to be lodged against him for the offence u/s 138 of N.I. Act. In response to the Court summons, the accused appeared and pleaded not guilty. As such, the complainant in order to prove his case got examined himself as PW1 and relied upon 9 documents marked as Exs. P1 to P9. The accused denied all the incriminating evidence appeared against him in his examination u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. He has not led any defence evidence. The learned Magistrate upon hearing the arguments and upon consideration of the evidence placed on record, by judgment dated 22.12.2008, convicted the accused for the offence u/s 138 of N.I. Act and sentenced to pay a fine amount of Rs. 55,000/- and also ordered to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation out of the fine amount. Dissatisfied with the order of conviction and sentence, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No. 31/2009 on the file of the Fast Track Court-VI, Bangalore City. The learned Sessions Judge, upon re-appreciation of the evidence, by his judgment dated 18.02.2010 dismissed the appeal while confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Magistrate. Questioning the legality and correctness of the orders passed by both the Courts below, this revision petition is preferred by the petitioner/accused.

Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the records. The complainant who has been examined as PW1 went on record to depose regarding issuance of cheque, presentation of the cheque, dishonour of the cheque, issuance of legal notice and filing of the complaint. Apart from his oral evidence, he produced all the necessary documents marked as Exs. P1 to P9. Ex. P1 is the cheque for Rs. 35,000/-, Exs. P2 and P3 are Bank Memos informing the dishonour of the cheque. Ex. P4 is the office copy of the notice issued to the accused. Exs. P5 and P6 are the postal acknowledgment for having sent the notice by Under Certificate of Posting and by RPAD. Ex. P7 is the returned RPAD cover wherein endorsement is made by the postman regarding intimation is given. Ex. P8 is the notice which was sent to the accused by RPAD. Thus, from the documentary evidence coupled with oral evidence of PW1, it is clear that all the necessary ingredients to file a complaint u/s 138 of N.I. Act has been fulfilled by the complainant. The accused has not led any defence evidence. Therefore, the learned Magistrate has drawn presumption in favour of the complainant and came to the conclusion that said presumption is not rebutted by the accused. Thereby, taking into consideration the entire material placed before him convicted the accused for the offence u/s 138 of N.I. Act. Learned Sessions Judge also on re-appreciation of the evidence confirmed the conviction. I do not see any good ground made out by the petitioner so as to call for my interference. The revision petition is bereft of merits. Hence, I pass the following order.

Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.