9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 851X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... take any action against the complainant about the mis-use of Ex.P1 is not explained by the accused. PW-2 who is the Manager of the Indian Overseas Bank, Tumkur has specifically deposed before the Court that the signatures found in Ex.P1 tallies with the specimen signatures maintained by the Bank - These aspects of the matter has been properly appreciated by the learned Magistrate as well as the first Appellate Court in the impugned judgment. This court in the revisional jurisdiction with the limited scope of revision, cannot re-visit to the minute details in the case especially when there is a concurrent finding of facts of both the courts. Suffice to say when the materials available on record and the reasonings recorded by both the courts in the impugned judgments, do not suffer from legal infirmity so as to interfere with the same in this Revision Petition there cannot be any dispute as to the principles of law enunciated in the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner. But the facts in the said case and the facts of the case on hand are altogether different and in the absence of any positive evidence placed by the accused, the finding recorded and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stated the same before the learned Magistrate, it is necessary for this court to pass an appropriate sentence - Revision allowed in part. - CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.123/2015 - - - Dated:- 13-1-2021 - THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA FOR THE PETITIONER : SRI. AHAMED S. N., ADV. FOR THE RESPONDENT : BY SRI. K. NAGABHUSHAN REDDY, ADV. NO REPRESENTATION) ORDER The accused is in Revision challenging the order dated 7th January, 2015 passed by the learned IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Madhugiri in Criminal Appeal No.5008/2014; whereby the learned District and Sessions Judge confirmed the order of conviction dated 15th April, 2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Koratagere in CC No.35/2010 and convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and ordered simple imprisonment for a period of one year and directed the accused to pay a sum of ₹ 2,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant under Section 357(3) of Cr.PC., 2. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the Revision Petition are as under: The complaint came to be filed u/s.200 Cr.PC., read with Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Magistrate, the accused preferred an appeal on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madhugiri in Criminal Appeal No.5008/2014. The learned Judge in the first Appellate Court secured the presence of the parties as well as the records, heard the parties in detail and dismissed the appeal whereby confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. It is this which is the subject matter of this Revision Petition. 7. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner Sri. Ahamed, vehemently contended that both the courts have failed to note that there was a material alteration in the cheque whereby the cheque itself rendered invalid and thus the conviction is improper. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the date which was written on the cheque as 29.05.2008 has been altered as 29.05.2009 and therefore, the conviction order passed by the Trial Court and confirmed in the first Appellate Court is incorrect, illegal and thus sought for allowing the Revision Petition. 8. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner further contended that initial burden has not been discharged by the complainant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as well as the first Appellate Court while holding that the accused has committed an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, have taken into consideration the material evidence on record. No doubt there is an alteration in the cheque which is marked as Ex.P1 as to the date 28.05.2008 has been altered as 28.05.2009 which is visible to the naked eye. However, there is a signature underneath the said correction. In this regard, PW-1 was cross examined extensively. The defence taken by the accused is that while he was proceeding in a Car, he met with an accident, wherein he lost the cheques and one of those cheques have been mis-used by the complainant. In the cross examination of PW-1, he has answered that accused has obtained the loan in the month of April, 2009. In the complaint averments also, it has been clearly mentioned that accused borrowed money in the month of April, 2009. When such is the factual aspects, the alteration as to the date which has been found on Ex.P1 from 29.05.2008 to 29.05.2009, in the considered opinion of this court is properly explained by the complainant. 14. It is the accused who has taken the contention that there is a material ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icted for the offence punishable under section.138 of N.I. Act. Further, accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under section 138 of N.I. Act Acting under section 357 (3) of Cr.P.C accused is directed and liable to pay compensation in a sum of ₹ 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) to the complainant. The bail bands of the accused shall stand cancelled. Office is here by directed to supply free copy of the judgment to the accused forth with. 18. It is pertinent to note that the operative portion of the order do not contain a sentence of fine ordered as against the accused but only compensation of ₹ 2 lakhs is ordered. In paragraph 28 of the judgment, there is a discussion as to why the learned Magistrate is imposing fine of ₹ 2,00,000/-. The learned Magistrate has rightly observed that accused has set up all possible evidence that are available to the accused to failed to substantiate the said defence and therefore, he has caused mandatory loss to the complainant and hence ordered for compensation of a sum of ₹ 2,00,000/-. 19. Whenever a compensation is awarded in a matt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
