9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 47X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icted the accused/applicant under Section 138 of N.I. Act. That apart, it is settled position of law that the scope of interference in exercise of revisional powers of the High Court is quite limited inasmuch as it has to only verify that whether there is any material irregularity and/or illegality coupled with arbitrariness or perverseness in the impugned order or not. In the present case, no such circumstance is there warranting interference by this Court. The criminal revision preferred by the applicant is bereft of any substance and, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside - revision dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... legal notice to the applicant through his counsel for payment of said amount but the applicant did not pay the amount to respondent. Thereafter, the complainant filed an complaint under Sections 148 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1981 (for short 'the N.I. Act') before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg. After witness of complainant, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, registered the complaint bearing Complaint Case No.1090/2011 against the accused/ applicant and framed charges under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Before the trial Court, the complainant examined himself and one witness namely Narula Raj. The statement of the accused/applicant was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rought before the learned Appellate Court below that the accused is suffering from mental disease but the learned Appellate Court below while passing the impugned judgment did not consider this aspect of the case and passed the judgment impugned. Thus, the order passed by both the Courts below are liable to be set aside. 5. Learned counsel for respondent supports the impugned judgments passed by both the Courts below. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 7. Before the learned trial Court, Complainant Anup Bansal examined himself in support of his complaint and exhibited invoice of product of his firm (Ex.P/1C and P/2C), cheque (Ex.P/3), memo of bank (Ex.P/4 and P/5), copy of notice (Ex.P/6), ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ments raised by the appellants at face value that only a blank cheque and signed blank stamp papers were given to the respondent, yet the statutory presumption cannot be obliterated. It is useful to cite Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar, (2019) 4 SCC 197, 36 where this court held that: "Even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily signed and handed over by the accused, which is towards some payment, would attract presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in the absence of any cogent evidence to show that the cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt." 11. In similar matter of Sumeti Vij (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in paras 19, 20 & 21 as under : "19. Thereafter, two separate legal notices were served by the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d his cheque and legal notice & the accused/applicant also admitted his signature and bank account and he has not rebutted the fact and also failed to proved that at the time of signing the cheque, he was suffering from mental disease. Thus, the learned trial Court and the learned Appellate Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, have rightly convicted the accused/applicant under Section 138 of N.I. Act. That apart, it is settled position of law that the scope of interference in exercise of revisional powers of the High Court is quite limited inasmuch as it has to only verify that whether there is any material irregularity and/or illegality coupled with arbitrariness or perverseness in the impugned order or not. In the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
