9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 1122X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d and with regard to proving of the transaction, the complainant has relied upon Exs.P11 to P17, credit bills and in order to rebut the claim of the complainant, no documents are produced and though the accused took the contention that those three cheques were issued to the son of the complainant towards chit transaction, nothing is stated in his chief evidence that those three cheques were given to the son of the complainant his evidence is silent with regard to the same and the defence has remained as a defence. Thus, no error committed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court in appreciating both oral and documentary evidence placed on record and unless the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court fail to consider the material on record, the question of invoking revisional jurisdiction does not arise. The Court can exercise its revisional jurisdiction, only if the material evidence is not considered by the Courts below and if the order suffers from its legality and correctness. The petitioner has not made out any ground to exercise revisional jurisdiction and there is no merit in the revision - answered in negative. The revision petition is dismissed. - THE HO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the complainant and in default of payment, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. 5. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, an appeal is filed before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.25054/2015. The main contention urged in the appeal is that there is no proper service of notice and when the complainant has not proved his case, the question of rebuttal does not arise. The First Appellate Court, having considered the grounds urged in the appeal formulated the points whether the Trial Court is justified in convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and whether the Trial Court has not properly appreciated the material regarding improper service of notice as contended by the appellant. 6. The First Appellate Court, having reassessed both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, comes to the conclusion that the Trial Court has not committed any error in invoking Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and also comes to the conclusion that the admission given by D.W.1 with regard to the address for which notice was issued is held sufficient and there is no improper se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and drawn the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The counsel would contend that the scope of revision is very limited and unless the case of the complainant is rebutted, the question of interference by exercising revisional jurisdiction does not arise. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent and also on perusal of the material available on record and considering the grounds urged in the revision petition, the points that would arise for consideration of this Court are: (1) Whether the judgment passed by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court suffers from its legality and correctness? (2) What order? Point No.(1): 10. Having heard the learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and also the grounds urged in the revision petition, the main contention is that there is no proper service. Learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that transaction has not been proved. It has to be noted that the complainant in the complaint has specifically stated that the petitioner herein was a regular customer of the complainant and he use ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the same was admitted. He admits that in the said document, his name is mentioned, which is marked as Ex.P18. 13. Having perused the oral evidence of P.W.1 and also the evidence of D.W.1, no doubt, it is the claim of the petitioner that he has not made any transaction with the respondent- complainant herein, it is important to note that in the chief evidence of the petitioner, he denies that he has not given these three cheques. But, he did not deny the signatures available in the cheques, except stating that he has not issued the cheques. When the cheques are issued and signatures are not denied, the Trial Court rightly drawn the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 14. It is also important to note that though suggestions are made in the cross-examination that no such transaction has taken place between them, once the cheques are issued and the cheques bear the signature of the petitioner and he has not denied the signature in the cheques, he has to explain under what circumstances, those cheques are given in favour of the complainant. It is also important to note that Exs.P11 to P17 are subsequently marked when the very transaction was d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch being the material on record, the very contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted. Once the cheques are placed before the Court and the petitioner has not denied the signatures available in the cheques, except a general denial that he has not issued the cheques, he has not given any explanation. The Trial Court has rightly drawn the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act and once the issuance of cheque is proved by the complainant, the same has to be rebutted and no such rebuttal evidence is placed by the petitioner. Though he has been examined before the Court, in his chief evidence, except denying the service of notice and issuance of cheques, no material is placed before the Court to substantiate this contention. 18. The First Appellate Court also having reassessed the material on record, in Para No.13, taken note of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record and with regard to proving of the transaction, the complainant has relied upon Exs.P11 to P17, credit bills and in order to rebut the claim of the complainant, no documents are produced and though the accused took the contention that those three cheques were issued to the so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
