S. Papanna vs M. Jagadish Pai

V. Jagannathan

This Criminal Revision Petition is by the complainant being aggrieved by the lower appellate court setting aside the trial court''s judgment of conviction of the respondent-accused in respect of an offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Brief facts are that, the petitioner-complainant approached the trial court with his complaint u/s 200 of the Cr.P.C. alleging that he had given a hand loan of Rs. 55,000/- to the accused in the year 2005 and towards that, the accused had issued a cheque dated 30.1.2006 for Rs. 55,000/- and the said cheque, on presentation, was returned with the endorsement "insufficient funds". After issue of notice to the accused, the complaint was filed.

The trial court, considering the material placed by both sides, convicted the respondent in respect of the aforesaid offence and sentenced him to pay Rs. 80,000/- as fine out of which Rs. 72,000/- was to be paid as compensation to the complainant. The accused challenged his conviction before the lower appellate court in Criminal Appeal No. 126/2008 and was successful in getting the trial court''s judgment set aside. Aggrieved by the reversal of the trial court''s judgment at the hands of the lower appellate court, the complainant has presented this revision petition.

None appears for the petitioner despite this Court having waited and heard the arguments of the Learned Counsel for the respondent and perused the records.

The submission of the Learned Counsel for the respondent is that, the judgment of the lower appellate court requires no interference because, the lower appellate court has considered the material very carefully and notwithstanding the cheque having been signed by the accused, the court has considered the defence taken by the accused and has observed that the complainant, being a person working as a Head Constable at the C.O.D., could not have advanced Rs. 55,000/- loan without any document and secondly, the complainant has also not informed the department about the advancement of loan to the accused and thirdly, nothing is mentioned in the income tax returns about the loan being paid to the accused. Taking these factors into account and the provisions of the Income Tax Act which provide that any amount more than Rs. 20,000/- has to be given by way of account payee cheque, the lower appellate court, therefore, set aside the judgment of the trial court. Therefore, the view taken by the lower appellate court is just and proper.

Having thus heard the Learned Counsel for the respondent and after examining the material on record, except the oral say of P.W. 1, there is nothing to show that Rs. 55,000/- was given to the accused by the complainant and there is also no evidence placed by P.W. 1 to show that on what date the amount was given and in whose presence. In addition to this, the evidence of D.W. 1 also reveals that there is no relationship between the accused and the complainant. The accused is a resident of Mudabidare in Dakshina Kannada, whereas the complainant is said to be at Bangalore working in C.O.D. and a resident of Mandya. D.W. 1 has further deposed that he has no business relationship with the complainant and had never met him at any point of time. It is also the defence version that the cheque was given to one Prabhu and it was misused by the complainant. Thus, the combined effect of the evidence of P.W. 1 and D.W. 1 led the lower appellate court to disbelieve the case of the complainant and, therefore, the accused was acquitted. The view taken by the lower appellate court appears to be a possible view emerging from the over all evidence on record. I, therefore, see no case being made out for this Court to reverse the order of acquittal passed by the lower appellate court.

For the above reasons, the petition is rejected.

The amount in deposit, if any made by the respondent, be refunded to him.