Sadiq Hussain vs Shrishti Fabrics

Sunil Gaur, J.—Petitioner''s conviction and sentence for the offence u/s 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 stand affirmed vide impugned order of 7th March, 2013. Learned counsel for petitioner had assailed the impugned order on the following five grounds:--

(i) MM grossly allowed the application u/s 311 Cr.P.C.

(ii) Ex. CW1/F is a document fabricated by respondent-complainant and the same has been smuggled on the judicial record at a later stage.

(iii) CW2-complainant has admitted that Ex.CW1/F was not prepared or signed by him and he has not produced the person who prepared the same.

(iv) Legal Notice Ex.CW1/C was not served to the petitioner. No proof of its service has been placed on record and it is own case of respondent that notice had been returned unserved.

(v) Cheque has been issued by National Sales Corporation and it cannot be attributed to petitioner.

It would be pertinent to note that petitioner has not disputed the signatures on the cheque in question and so, statutory presumption arises against petitioner. Whether petitioner has been able to rebut statutory presumption raised against him, is the moot question which is required to be considered. This Court is conscious that an accused is not required to lead evidence to rebut the statutory presumption if it could be shown or gathered from the material on record or the evidence of complainant that the statutory presumption stands rebutted.

Upon hearing petitioner''s counsel and on perusal of the impugned order and the material on record, I find that afore-noted grounds on which impugned order is assailed have been adequately dealt by the appellate court in paragraphs No. 3 to 8.

In the instant case, I find that reliance placed by petitioner''s counsel upon the decision in Rajendraprasad Porwal Vs. Mr. Santoshkumar Parasmal Saklecha, L.R. of Mr. Parasmal Harakchand Saklecha and State of Maharashtra, is of no avail as petitioner has not been able, to effectively rebut the statutory presumption raised against him and so finding no illegality or infirmity, petitioner''s conviction and sentence are maintained. After the hearing was concluded, petitioner had come up with an application bearing Crl.M.A. No. 4269/2013 raising a general question by terming it to be a legal question. The so-called legal question raised is as under:--

Whether the trial of criminal offence is vitiated when the trial court proceeds on the basis of allegations (as evidence) which are not to be found in the evidence led by the complainant?

To say the least, the so-called aforesaid legal question, does not arise for consideration in this case. Even reliance placed upon decisions in Katta Annaji Rao Vs. Nemani Krishnaraju Sekhar and The State of A.P., , Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs. Dattatraya G. Hegde, , Rangappa Vs. Sri Mohan, , Shrimathi Nayak Vs. Renuka, , Rajendraprasad Gangabishen Porwal v. Santoshkumar Parasmal Saklecha & Anr. (supra) and Vinay Parulekar Vs. Pramod Meshram, is misplaced as petitioner has failed to rebut the statutory presumption raised against him.

As such, this revision petition and the application are dismissed.