Sri R. Vasanth @ Vasanth Kumar R. vs Sri G. Venkatesh

N. Ananda, J.—There are concurrent findings of courts below that petitioner has committed 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 nor. 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.

I have heard learned counsel for parties.

The trial court on appreciation of evidence has rejected the defence of petitioner that he had issued cheque in favour of respondent as a security for availing loan from a bank. The petitioner has not placed any evidence to substantiate this defence. Therefore, trial court has rejected the defence put forth by petitioner. The learned Judge of I-appellate court on re-appreciation of evidence has confirmed the findings of trial court.

On reconsideration of the matter, I find that contention taken by petitioner to rebut presumption available u/s 139 of the Act has not been substantiated. The petitioner has not stated from which bank he wanted to raise loan and what was the nexus between complainant and said bank. There was no occasion for complainant to avail loan from bank. In the circumstances, the case of complainant and evidence adduced by complainant looks probable. There are no reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment. The revision petition is dismissed.