Sri K. Subramani vs Sri B. Devaraja

N. Ananda, J.—There are concurrent findings of the Courts below that petitioner (accused) has committed an offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Heard Sri N. Srinivas, the learned counsel for petitioner and Sri M.K. Venkatramana, the learned counsel for respondent.

The law is fairly well settled that this Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction, does not sit as a Court of Second Appeal. This Court can interfere with the impugned judgment if it is demonstrated that the Courts below have committed glaring errors in appreciation of evidence or errors of law resulting manifest injustice to petitioner.

The accused has not disputed that dishonoured cheque belonged to the account held by him with Janatha Co-operative Bank, West of Chord Road Branch, Bangalore. The accused has also not disputed his signature on the cheque. The accused has sought to establish that there were transactions between accused and the son-in-law of complainant. In other words, the son-in-law of complainant had taken blank signed cheque from the accused. The cheque was given as security to discharge loan. The son-in-law of the complainant did not return the cheque, on the other hand the cheque was misused to lodge the instant complaint. The accused has also contended that cheque was not drawn on the date shown on the instrument.

On the application filed by accused, disputed cheque was sent to hand writing expert to know the age of signature and contents of the cheque. The hand writing expert expressed his opinion that it is not possible to determine the age of signature found on the cheque or the contents thereof.

The accused has been working as a lecturer. He is not an uneducated person. In the circumstances, it looks improbable that he would issue signed blank cheque for securing loan. The accused was aware of the consequences of issuing blank signed cheque. The accused has also executed a promissory note in favour of complainant. There is no satisfactory explanation to disprove the contents of promissory note.

The learned trial Judge on appreciation of evidence of complainant and accused, has come to the conclusion that the evidence of complainant is consistent and credible. The accused has not adduced evidence to rebut the presumption available u/s 139 of the N.I. Act.

The accused has also contended that there was no proper service of notice. The learned Trial Judge considering the postal acknowledge, has held that there was service of notice on accused. The trial Court on proper appreciation of evidence has negatived the contentions raised by accused.

The learned Judge of the first Appellate Court, on re-appreciation of evidence, has confirmed the findings of the Trial Court.

On reconsideration of the matter, I do not find reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment. The petition is dismissed. In view of dismissal of petition, application filed by the learned counsel for petitioner for production of additional documents does not survive for consideration. I.A. No. 1/2013 is also dismissed.