9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (9) TMI 1216X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused, to assail his conviction concurrently rendered by the two inferior courts, is that the challenge against the execution of Ext.P1 cheque, and, also the denial of the transaction with the complainant over that instrument, was not appreciated and considered in accordance with the settled principles of law. The defence canvassed by the accused that Ext.P1 cheque in blank form with signature alone was handed over to the complainant in relation to a totally different transaction, in respect of which oral and documentary evidence was placed, was discarded by the court below overlooking that defence version need be shown only as probable and it need not be proved with meticulous precision for its acceptance, according to the counsel. The application moved by the accused before the appellate court permitting him to lead additional evidence to prove the documents already tendered, and also to examine one more witness, was not considered nor any order passed on such application before entering into a decision on the merits of the appeal and that has caused great prejudice and denial of justice to the accused, is the submission of the counsel. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s only a security for discharging liability to another, that too, under a transaction where there was joint liability of both the accused in the complaint, was shown to be so improper and unworthy of any defence, and it was rightly and correctly turned down by the courts below, according to the counsel. There is also no merit that opportunity was denied to lead additional evidence by the appellate court especially in a case of this nature where the defence canvassed itself was shown to be devoid of any merit, submits the counsel. Conviction entered against the accused and also the sentence as modified by the learned Sessions Judge, both of them, do not suffer from any infirmity and there is no merit in the appeal, is the further submission of the counsel urging for dismissal of the revision. 4. The complainant s case was that a sum of ₹ 1 lakh was initially provided to accused as a loan, and out of which ₹ 25,000/- was given by cheque. On the request of the accused for financial assistance, later, the complainant availed loan from a bank for ₹ 2 lakhs and that amount was also handed over to him. To discharge the outstanding liability on the loans availed, the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed were office bearers, was dishonoured on presentation, has also been pressed into service to show that the version presented by him was probable and acceptable. The learned Magistrate, after appreciating the materials on record, found the case of the complainant, trustworthy, and the defence version projected by the accused, unworthy of any merit. The learned Sessions Judge, after reappraisal of the evidence, has concurred with the view so formed by the learned Magistrate to sustain the finding of guilt against the accused for the offence imputed. 5. Is there any merit in the challenges canvassed by the accused to assail the concurrent finding as stated above arises for consideration in this revision. First of all, it has to be taken note that in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, a finding of fact based on evidence tendered in the case is not liable to be disturbed unless it is shown to be perverse or that it could not have been legitimately formed on the materials on record or it is patently erroneous and unsustainable under law. The accused had set up a defence version and attempted to lead evidence in support thereof is not a ground enabling him to impeach the finding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shonoured cheque, for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is well settled. But, what is the rigour of proof that is required to prove the execution even where there is denial by the maker depends upon the facts and circumstance involved in the case. There is no room for doubt that the evidence of the complainant where it is found to be credible and trustworthy is sufficient to conclude that the cheque was duly executed by the maker towards discharge of a debt or liability towards him. Whether corroboration to his evidence on that disputed question is required or not has to be looked into with reference to the facts proved and not solely on the basis that a defence raised challenging the execution. Corroboration after all is a rule of prudence and not one of law. Both the courts below have found that the defence canvassed by the accused denying the execution of the cheque setting up a rival version was totally devoid of any merit. He has challenged the execution, examined some witnesses and also moved some applications before the appellate court, do not substantiate the defence canvassed for. The falsity and improbability of his defence has, in fact, been brought out from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
