9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 221X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the burden is on the accused to prove his case. In this case, as stated above that the complainant has proved his case by letting in sufficient evidence, however, the accused having admitted the signatures in the pronote and the cheque has not let in any evidence in rebuttal. The Appellate Court while confirming the conviction, modified the sentence to six months instead of one year as imposed by the trial Court and as far as awarding of compensation is concerned, the same was confirmed. This Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the judgments passed by the Courts below - Revision dismissed. - Crl.R.C.No.494 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 16-3-2021 - THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA For the Petitioner : Mr.E.Kannadasan For the Respondent : Mr.S.T.Varadharajulu ORDER (The cases have been heard through video conference) For the sake of convenience, the petitioner and the respondent will be referred to as accused and complainant respectively. 2.It is a case of the complainant that the accused had approached him on 10.06.2009 and borrowed a sum of ₹ 2,00,000/- from him as hand loan and agreed to repay the same whenever demanded by the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he trial Court, by judgment and order dated 05.07.2012 in C.C.No.166 of 2010 had found the accused guilty and convicted him u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year in terms of Section 255(2) Cr.P.C. and to pay a compensation of ₹ 2,50,000/- to the complainant within a period of three months and in default of payment of the compensation, directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months u/s.357(3) Cr.P.C. Against the said conviction and sentence, the accused had filed an appeal in C.A.No.126 of 2012 and the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Vellore, Vellore District by judgment and order dated 10.03.2014, allowed the appeal in part and while confirming the conviction u/s.138 of N.I.Act had modified the sentence and the accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months, instead of one year as imposed by the trial Court and confirmed the compensation amount awarded by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the findings of the Courts below, the accused has preferred the present Criminal Revision under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C. 7.Heard Mr.E.Kannadasan, learne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SCC Online SC 193. 10.Before adverting to the rival submissions, it may be necessary to state here that while exercising Revisional jurisdiction in a case involving concurrent findings of fact arrived at by two Courts below, the High Court cannot act as a second appellate Court [See State of Maharashtra Vs. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand and Others, etc. (2004) 7 SCC 659]. Very recently, in Bir Singh Vs. Mukesh Kumar [(2019) 4 SCC 197], the Supreme Court has held as under: 17. As held by this Court in Southern Sales Services v. Sauermilch Design and Handels GmbH [Southern Sales Services v. Sauermilch Design and Handels GmbH, (2008) 14 SCC 457], it is a well established principle of law that the Revisional Court will not interfere even if a wrong order is passed by a court having jurisdiction, in the absence of a jurisdictional error. (emphasis supplied) 11.In this case, the accused has not denied his signature in the impugned promissory note and the post dated cheque (Ex.P1 Ex.P2). This Court perused the cheque and other documents marked by the complainant viz. Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 and did not find any suspicious feature in it. The defence of the accused is th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... purely for the purpose of borrowal of hand loan of ₹ 2,50,000/- by accused on 10.06.2009 and 09.08.2010, the accused had agreed to repay the same along with interest. Assuming for a moment that the accused had given a blank but signed cheque to the complainant, he would have taken steps to get back the cheque, when the cheque issued by him was dishonoured. The accused would have atleast issued stop payment instructions to the banker, which was not done. Even in the 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the accused did not take this plea. Therefore, the complainant initiated prosecution by way of private complaint in C.C.No.166 of 2010 before The learned Judicial Magistrate, Katpadi, Vellore District, for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. A presumption is cast under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, however the presumption is rebuttable by the accused in this case. 13.In APS Forex Services Private Limited vs. Shakti International Fashion Linkers and Others reported in (2020) SCC Online SC 193, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that Section 139 of the N.I. Act is an example of reverse onus clause and once the issuance of cheque has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
