AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D.V. Shylendra Kumar
Mr. Raju, learned counsel for the petitioners is not in a position to urge any points which merits examination in a petition u/s 397 of Code of Criminal Prodecure, 1973, for short ''the Cr.P.C.) except to submit that the revision petitioners had repaid the amount borrowed by them from the respondent and the cheque had been issued only by way of security and not for actual repayment etc. The cheque is dated 5.5.1999 for a sum of Rs. 3,93,260,50 drawn in the name of M/s. Maharababa Borewells and on presentation by the drawee had been dishonoured by the drawee banker with the endorsement ''referred to drawer'' etc.
This was the precise defence taken before the Trial Court by the revision petitioners and relied upon Ex.D1 a cash voucher dated 29.5.1999. the trial court did examine this defence, but found that such was not the response to the issue of cheque on behalf of the payee and did not accept the defence of the petitioners that in good hope and faith had not taken back the cheque from the complainant therein which according to the respondents therein had been issued by way of security.
The trial court while examining found that such was not the conduct of the ordinary prudent businessman. On the other hand, the presumption against the drawer had not been rebutted in a cogent manner and therefore, convicted the respondent for the offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 1831, with fine of Rs. 4,03,260.50 and in default to undergo S.I. for 6 months and also directed a sum of Rs. 3,93.260.50 to be released in favor of the complainant from out of the fine amount and the balance to go to the State.
Aggrieved by this conviction and imposition of fine the respondent accused had preferred an appeal before the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 845/2009. The learned Past Track Judge, determined the following points for consideration :-
Whether the complainant has proved before the trial court that the cheque has been issued by the accused towards the discharge of legally recoverable debt?
Whether the order of the Trial Court is erroneous, requires interference?
What order ?
and answered all points against the revision petitioners and in favor of the respondent - complainant and dismissed the appeal, against this appellate order the present criminal revision petition.
As noticed above while Mr. Raju, urges the same defence yet again, before this Court that defence having been examined by the trial court and the appellate court and having found to be a defence without any merit or substance and having been rejected, reiteration in this revision petition does not help the petitioners.
No point made out for interference by this court in revisional jurisdiction u/s 397 of the Cr.P.C. criminal revision petition is dismissed.