9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 887X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er admits to have received ₹ 3,50,000/- on 16.06.2006 and ₹ 1,00,000/- on 26.06.2006 and he admits the endorsement to this effect found in Ex. P.5. But he disputes all other endorsements and the signatures below them. Though it is possible to infer that signatures found below the endorsements are that of the petitioner despite their denial by him, and that there is no consistency in his defence, it is not possible to accept the respondent's case that the petitioner issued the cheque in question for discharging liability of ₹ 19,50,000/-. Ex. P.5 is the document that the respondent has relied upon to prove the existence of legally enforceable debt. This document shows liability of ₹ 12,00,000/- only. Payment of incidental charges did not arise because the sale deed was not executed. DW1, i.e., the petitioner has stated in para 4 of his affidavit that the respondent did not pay ₹ 2,50,000/-. The petitioner has admitted to have received only ₹ 4,50,000/-. The counsel for the respondent referred to one answer of D.W.1 in his cross examination that he received one payment from Ananda Kumar and submitted that this admission would prove the trans ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d a cheque bearing No. 007783 dated 8.5.2009 drawn on State Bank of Mysore for ₹ 19,50,000/-. The complainant presented this cheque for encashment at his Bank and when it was dishonoured for 'insufficiency of funds' in the bank account of the petitioner, the respondent initiated action after issuing demand notice. The trial court held the accused guilty of the offence under section 138 of N.I. Act and sentenced him to fine of ₹ 28,10,000/- with default sentence imprisonment period of six months. When the petitioner questioned the judgment of the trial court in the appellate court, his appeal came to be dismissed by the impugned judgment and hence this revision petition. 3. I have heard the argument of Sri. B.S. Venkatanarayan, learned Amicus Curiae for the petitioner and Sri. Y.H. Ganesh Bhat, counsel for the respondent. 4. Sri. B.S. Venkatanarayan submitted that the courts below might have concurrently held that the petitioner is guilty of the offence under section 138 of N.I. Act, but they have failed to notice one aspect of the matter that the respondent has not been able to prove that the cheque in question was issued for discharging the liability of & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the courts below and acquitting the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent Sri. Y.H. Ganesh Bhat, submitted that when both the courts below have concurrently held on facts that the petitioner issued the cheque in question for discharging the liability, in the revision petition interference with the findings on the facts is not permitted. The petitioner admits his signature on the cheque. He admits Ex. P.5, the MoU. His evidence clearly shows to have received money from the respondent on different dates. He also admits that he received a certain sum of money from Ananda Kumar. In this view the trial court in the first instance properly came to conclusion that the petitioner issued a cheque for clearing his liability of ₹ 19,50,000/-. In view of this, the trial court has rightly drawn presumption under section 139 of N.I. Act in favour of the petitioner. If the defence evidence of the petitioner is considered, it is not consistent and this has been correctly observed by the trial court. On one hand the petitioner says that the respondent obtained the cheque forcibly from him and on the other hand, he states that he issued the cheque for security purpose. Thus t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5,00,000/-) and other incidental charges for registration of sale deed. It is not disputed that the sale transaction failed, and therefore the sum that respondent might have paid to the petitioner is ₹ 12,00,000/- only. The petitioner admits to have received ₹ 3,50,000/- on 16.06.2006 and ₹ 1,00,000/- on 26.06.2006 and he admits the endorsement to this effect found in Ex. P.5. But he disputes all other endorsements and the signatures below them. Though it is possible to infer that signatures found below the endorsements are that of the petitioner despite their denial by him, and that there is no consistency in his defence, it is not possible to accept the respondent's case that the petitioner issued the cheque in question for discharging liability of ₹ 19,50,000/-. 9. Ex. P.5 is the document that the respondent has relied upon to prove the existence of legally enforceable debt. This document shows liability of ₹ 12,00,000/- only. Payment of incidental charges did not arise because the sale deed was not executed. DW1, i.e., the petitioner has stated in para 4 of his affidavit that the respondent did not pay ₹ 2,50,000/-. The petitioner has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
