9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 548X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he respondent filed the said case by way of private complaint alleging that the petitioner has committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial Court, by judgment dated 28.07.2015, found the accused guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a compensation of Rs. 1,10,500/-. 3. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the revision petitioner filed an appeal in C.A. No. 3 of 2016. By judgment dated 21.02.2017, the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli, dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court. 4. Aggrieved over the same, the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were put to the accused, he denied the same as false. On the other hand, the revision petitioner/accused himself was examined as D.W. 1 and he states that before the occurrence, both himself and the complainant are having loan transactions, wherein he paid Rs. 2,10,000/- to the complainant, for redeeming the gold jewels pledged by him. Thereafter, the complainant has also received Rs. 95,000/- from the accused by pledging gold jewels, viz., Rs. 12,000/- as cost for one sovereign of gold and thereafter, he did not redeem the same. In this regard, a dispute arose and as a result of which, he lodged a complaint before the Kattuputhur Police Station, wherein, during enquiry, the Police obtained his signature in two blank cheques and also in Rs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... him. Against which, the petitioner has filed an appeal and the same has also been dismissed. That is how the petitioner is before this Court with this criminal revision. 9. I have heard Mr. T.J. Ebenezer Charles, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. G.S. Asok Adhithyan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that from Exs. D.1 to D.3, it has been clearly established by the accused that the cheque in question was not at all issued to the complainant and as a matter of fact, the same was obtained by the complainant by coercion with the help of Police Officers attached to the Kattuputhur Police Station. The learned counsel would further submit that Ex. D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ex. D2. Now, on going through Ex. D.2 series, it is seen that the complaint has been lodged only in respect of misappropriation of jewels and in respect of its consequences. Further, the said enquiry has been conducted on 08.08.2013, though the cheque pertains to the case is dated 10.09.2013, which is subsequent to the said enquiry. On going through the cross-examination of D.W. 2, it appears that nothing was suggested on the side of the accused, particularly, about the issuance of the said cheque. In the absence of particular entry in the related document, this Court cannot conclude the case that the alleged cheque was obtained from the petitioner by coercion. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the stand taken by the accused that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ex and others Vs. P. Balasubramanian], our Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows:- "The Statute mandates that once the signature(s) of an Accused on the Cheque/negotiable instrument are established, then these 'reverse onus' clauses become operative. In such a situation, the obligation shifts upon the Accused to discharge the presumption imposed upon him. This point of law has been crystallized by this Court in Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel v. State of Gujarat, 2019 (2) MWN (Cr.) DCC 26 (SC): 2019 (18) SCC 106, p.18, in the following words: "In the case at hand, even after purportedly drawing the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act, the Trial Court proceeded to question the want of evidence on the part of the Complainant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riminal Procedure Code, the High Court does not, in the absence of perversity, upset concurrent factual findings. It is not for the Revisional Court to re-analyse and re-interpret the evidence on record. 20. As held by this Court in Southern Sales and Services and Others vs. Sauermilch Design and Handels GMBH 2, 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. The answer to the first question is therefore, in the negative." 18. Further, in the case of N. Karthikeyan vs. M. Daisy Rani reported in 2020 (1) MWN (Cr.) DCC 187 (Mad), this Court has held as follows:- "11. This Court finds no reason m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
