Narendra Patel vs Shamshuddin

V. Jagannathan

This Criminal Revision Petition is by the accused calling in question his conviction u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the consequent sentence imposed by the trial court to deposit Rs. 2,43,000/- and in default to undergo eight months simple imprisonment and the said judgment being confirmed by the lower appellate court. None appears for the petitioner and there is no representation and I have heard Learned Counsel Ms. Vaishali Suvama for the respondent and perused the records of this case.

The submission of the Learned Counsel for the respondent is that, the petitioner-accused did not avail the opportunity given to him to cross-examine P.W. 1 and, therefore, the trial court, after giving enough opportunity, ultimately took the cross-examination of P.W. 1 as nil and posted the case for defence evidence. The accused did not lead any defence evidence and also did not argue the case before the trial court. Therefore, the trial court, on the basis of the evidence placed by P.W. 1 and the documents produced, convicted the petitioner. The lower appellate court also agreed with the trial court. As such, this petition has no merit.

Having thus heard the Learned Counsel for the respondent and after going through the records of this case and in particular the order sheet of the trial court, it is observed that though P.W. 1 was cross-examined on behalf of the accused, it was not completed in full and, as such, the trial court went on giving sufficient opportunity to the accused to complete the cross-examination. The accused did not avail of the opportunity and thereby the court was constrained to take the further cross-examination of the complainant as nil. The order sheet also reveals that no arguments were addressed on behalf of the accused and, therefore, the trial court accepted the case of the complainant and convicted the petitioner. The lower appellate court also considered all these aspects and has observed that the accused, despite being given sufficient opportunity, did not lead any defence evidence.

In the face of such material on record, the conviction of the petitioner by the trial court and confirmed by the lower appellate court, therefore, does not call for any interference in this revision. For the above reasons, the petition is rejected.