2006 (7) TMI 731 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Revision petition against guilty verdict, conviction, and sentence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
2. Defence raised regarding the purpose of the cheque issuance.
3. Rejection of the accused's version by the courts.
4. Challenge against the admissibility of evidence by the petitioner.
5. Competence of Power of Attorney holder as a witness.
6. Burden of proof in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Act.
7. Consideration of evidence and presumption under Section 139 of the Act.
8. Request for leniency in sentencing.

Analysis:
1. The revision petition challenges the guilty verdict, conviction, and sentence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The cheque amounting to Rs. 50,000 was admitted by the accused, and the notice of demand did not receive a response. The courts found all elements of the offence established, leading to the impugned judgments.

2. The accused attempted to argue that the cheque was not for a debt but as security for a lesser transaction. However, the courts rejected this defense, concluding it was unproven, and upheld the initial judgments.

3. The accused challenged the admissibility of evidence, citing previous cases. The court clarified that a Power of Attorney holder can testify to facts within their knowledge, even if the principal could also provide such information.

4. The courts emphasized that the burden of proof lies on the accused to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the Act. In this case, the evidence of a witness, along with the lack of response to the notice of demand, supported the complainant's case.

5. The court highlighted that the competence of a Power of Attorney holder as a witness depends on their knowledge of the facts, not solely on their role. The challenge against the admissibility of the witness's evidence was dismissed.

6. The evidence presented by the complainant, along with the presumption under Section 139, established the offence under Section 138. The accused's failure to provide evidence led to the upholding of the initial judgments.

7. Regarding sentencing, the court showed leniency but emphasized compensating the complainant adequately. The sentence was modified, reducing the imprisonment term and ordering compensation to be paid to the complainant.

In conclusion, the revision petition was partially allowed, upholding the guilty verdict and conviction under Section 138 of the N.I. Act but modifying the sentence for the accused.