9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 603X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... matter unless there is a patent factual defect in the case of the complainant or if there is a improper exercise of jurisdiction. This Court is of the considered opinion that the order of conviction passed by both the Courts is based on sound reasons and requires no interference in this revision petition - it is noticed that while imposing sentence, without assigning any special reasons, learned Trial Magistrate has imposed Rs.1,32,250/- as the fine amount as against cheque amount of Rs.75,000/-. Out of the which, sum of Rs.1,22,250/- was ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant and balance sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the defraying expenses of the State. Since lis is privy to the parties and no State machinery is involved, awarding sum of Rs.10,000/- towards defraying expenses of the State needs interference by this Court. So also taking note of the fact that no special reasons are forthcoming, ordering sum of Rs.1,10,000/- as the compensation to the complainant as against cheque amount of Rs.75,000/- by reducing fine amount of Rs.1,10,000/- from Rs.1,32,250/- would meet the ends of justice. Revision petition is allowed in part. - THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHAN ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted and marked as Exs.P.1 to P.8. 6. Detailed cross-examination both on factual aspects and technical aspects of the complainant witnesses, did not yield any positive material so as to disbelieve the version of the complainant or not to dislodge the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act except for the fact that accused maintains two accounts in MCDCC bank one in individual capacity and another in the capacity of the President of Bhagiratha Fishermen Association. 7. Accused statement as is contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded by learned Trial Magistrate, wherein accused has denied all the incriminatory circumstances. 8. To rebut the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, accused stepped into the witness box and got examined himself as D.W.1 and placed on record certified copy of the letter issued by the bank vide Ex.D.1. 9. In the cross-examination of D.W.1, he has not specifically answered as to how many accounts he is possessing in MCDCC bank but he admitted that he is well acquainted with both English and Kannada language. 10. He admits that he understoo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... but said cheque is to be signed by two persons for honouring the same. 20. In the case on hand, since Ex.P.1 is the cheque that has been signed by accused alone ought not have been dishonored with an endorsement funds insufficient and therefore, sought for allowing the revision petition. 21. On careful scrutiny of the material on record in this regard, it clearly shows that P.W.3 is the official of the MCDCC bank. In his oral evidence, it has clearly admitted that accused has got two accounts in his bank. One in the individual capacity and another account in the name of Bhagiratha Fishermen Association. He also specifically stated that accused used to operate both the accounts by himself. 22. These aspects of the matter have been taken note of by the learned Trial Magistrate while holding that the cheque in question was issued by the accused in his individual capacity. 23. A specific question was also put to the accused in his cross-examination in this regard as to how many accounts he has maintained and which is the individual account and which is a joint account. Accused cleverly gave an abasing answer to the said question and did not specifically dispute that the cheque in quest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e knows Kannada and if anything is in English, he will get it read by others and understands the same. Therefore, Ex.P4 legal notice was served on the Accused on 07.05.2012 and inspite of getting it read by others and understood by the DW1, he has not tried to give proper reply. 25. Why accused has chosen to sign in two different languages is also a question that needs to be explained by the accused under what circumstances, he signed the cheque in question in a particular language is also to be explained by the accused. Absolutely, there is no explanation forthcoming from the accused in this regard. 26. All these factors have been cumulatively appreciated by the learned Trial Magistrate while passing an order of conviction. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court has also reappreicted these aspects of the matter in the appeal filed by the accused and concurred with the finding recorded by the learned Trial Magistrate in convicting the accused for the aforesaid offences. 27. This Court, that too, in the revisional jurisdiction, cannot revisit into the factual aspects of the matter unless there is a patent factual defect in the case of the complainant or if there is a improper ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
