9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 1235X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... antiate his case by preponderance of probabilities. The case set up by the petitioner during the cross-examination of PWs.1 to 3 and also in his answers to the question put to him under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code is that the cheque was issued as a security in respect of the transactions between himself and the 1st respondent - Lack of signature of PW1 in two pages of Ext.P6 does not assume much importance since its execution is proved by the evidence of PW3 and it is in favour of the 1st respondent. It was after considering the aforesaid evidence in detail the courts below concurrently held that the petitioner failed to rebut the presumption available under Section 139 of the N.I. Act in respect of Ext.P1. The power of revision under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Code). 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. The 1st respondent filed a complaint alleging that in discharge of the money due from the petitioner, he had issued a cheque for Rs.24 lakhs to the 1st respondent on 24.03.2015. When the cheque was presented for encashment, it was returned unpaid for want of sufficient funds in the account of the petitioner. A demand notice was sent and inspite of receipt of the same, the money due under the cheque as not paid. 4. The accusation was denied by the petitioner. PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exts.P1 to P6 were marked by the 1st respondent to prove his case. Ext.X1 was also br ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The further contention of the learned counsel is that inspite of specific denial by the petitioner that Ext.P1 lacked consideration, no evidence to prove passing of consideration was let in by the 1st respondent. Ext.P6 is an agreement executed between the petitioner and the 1st respondent. In the second and third pages of that document, the 1st respondent did not affix his signature. That fact was not reckoned with by the courts below while placing reliance on the said document. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that evidence is totally lacking to prove that Ext.P1 was duly executed and it is supported by consideration. 6. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent, on the other hand, would submit that from the evidence of PW1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 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. 8. The petitioner has no case that the signature in Ext.P1 was not put by him. His case is that it was given as security only. In the light of the law laid down in the aforesaid decision, having issuance of Ext.P1 with his signature is admitted by the petitioner, presumption under Section 139 of the N.I.Act is liable to be drawn. The further question is whether the petitioner has succeeded in rebutting the presumption. 9. As stated, the main reason asserted both for dislodging execution of Ext.P1 and lack of consideration is that the similarity of handwriting in it with that in Ext.X1. PW1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sued towards payment of a debt or in discharge of a liability. It was further held that it would be open to the accused to raise all other defences which they may legitimately be entitled to otherwise raise in support of his plea that the cheque was not issued in pursuance of a pre-existing debt or outstanding liability. 10. Viewed in the light of the aforesaid proposition of law the fact that the columns in Ext.P1 were filled not by the petitioner, but in a different handwriting is totally immaterial. Therefore, the contention that the petitioner did not get enough opportunity to adduce evidence to show that the handwriting in Ext.P1 is that of the Bank Manager, who wrote Ext.X1 and the trial court did not compare the said documents do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ularity and propriety of the order impugned before it. When the findings rendered by the courts below are well supported by evidence on record and cannot be said to be perverse in any way, the High Court is not expected to interfere with the concurrent findings by the courts below while exercising revisional jurisdiction. [See: State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri (1999) 2 SCC 452; Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke (2015) 3 SCC 123; Kishan Rao v. Shankargouda [(2018) 8 SCC 165]. 13. In the light of the law laid down in the aforesaid decisions, this Court is not expected to substitute the concurrent finding of the court below with a different view unless such findings are perverse and against the e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
