AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N. Ananda, J.—There are concurrent findings of the courts below that petitioner (accused) has committed an offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Heard learned counsel for respondent. The learned counsel for petitioner is absent.
The complainant (APMC, Huliyur, Chikkanayakana Halli Taluk) represented by its Secretary had initiated a complaint u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner (accused) for dishonor of two cheques drawn by the petitioner (accused) in favour of respondent for payment of market cess.
The accused had not denied that cheques were drawn by him on the account held by him. It is also not disputed that petitioner had drawn the cheques in favour of complainant however, he had contended that he had paid the market cess in cash and complainant refused to return the cheques.
The trial court on appreciation of evidence has held that this is a far fetched defence. The learned judge of the I-appellate court on reappreciation of evidence has confirmed the findings of the trial court.
The petitioner is a business man. It is difficult to conceive that he would issue cheques without there being any liability on his part. The petitioner having contended that he had paid the market cess in cash has not produced the documents to substantiate the same. The defence of petitioner (accused) that after payment of market cess, he allowed the complainant to retain the cheques issued by him is not well founded. There are no reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment. The Revision Petition is dismissed.