9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 603X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heque amount of Rs.75,000/-, learned Trial Magistrate ordered to pay fine in a sum of Rs.1,32,250/- with default of simple imprisonment for a period of one year of which sum of Rs.1,22,250/- was ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant which was confirmed in Crl.A.No.27/2015 dated 04.06.2016 on the file of Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagar has preferred this present revision. 3. Facts in the nut shell for disposal of the revision petitioner are as under: 3.1. A complaint came to be lodged under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. with the jurisdictional Magistrate alleging the commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by contending that accused and complainant are well acquainted w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the cheque would not have been dishonored by the banker with an endorsement 'funds insufficient' and cheque should have been returned to the complainant for the technical reasons that cheque did not contain two signatures. Said aspect of matter is not properly appreciated by the learned Trial Magistrate and learned Judge in the First Appellate Court and therefore, sought for allowing the revision. 16. Per contra, Smt.N.R.Girisha, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned orders. 17. In reply, Sri.A.N.Radha Krishna, learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that in the event, this Court upholding the order of conviction may reduce the fine amount reasonably. 18. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... question was that of joint account. Therefore, learned Trial Magistrate taking note of the same, held that when once the cheque is issued and signature found therein is proved, the complainant enjoys the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, technical argument put forth on behalf of the accused cannot be countenanced in law. 24. In this regard, it is just and necessary to cull out paragraph Nos.20 to 24 of Trial Court judgment which reads as under: "20. The further evidence of PW3 reveals that, Accused was having two accounts with the PW3's bank and one account was in the individual capacity of the Accused and another in the capacity of president of Bhagiratha Fishermen Association and Accused ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is required". But without production of his bank account pass books, the Accused can not expect the Court to believe his words as gospel truth. 24. DW1 has admitted that he 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 forthcom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. 30. Accordingly, the following: ORDER i. Revision petition is allowed in part. ii. While maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, fine amount awarded by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court is reduced to sum of Rs.1,10,000/- from Rs.1,32,250/-. iii. Entire sum of Rs.1,10,000/- is ordered to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
