Smt. Kanakaratha vs Sri. E.R. Srinivasamurthy Shetty

V. Jagannathan

This revision petition is by the accused, who has been convicted u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the Trial Court and was sentenced to pay a sum of Rs. 2,05,000/- as compensation and the said judgment being confirmed by the Lower Appellate Court by dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of this case.

The only ground put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that though issuance of cheque by the accused is not in dispute, so also the signature on the cheque in question, but the defence of the accused is that a blank cheque was given to the complainant''s wife towards the chit fund transaction and the said cheque was misused by the complainant''s wife and therefore the petitioner made a request to the Trial Court to summon the wife. The non examination of the complainant''s wife has therefore led to the case being held against the petitioner.

In this connection, learned counsel having read the evidence of the witnesses examined before the Court below sought for remand of the case.

On the other hand, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent is that no evidence is placed to show that the complainants wife is doing chit fund business and secondly nothing prevented the petitioner from examining the complainant''s wife or any other member of the chit fund to prove the defence version. The next submission put forth is that the petitioner in one breath says that the notice was not served upon her and at the same time she also admits in the cross examination that the notice issued by the complainant was received by her, but she did not give any reply to the said notice. For all these reasons, he prays that the petition may be dismissed.

Having heard both sides and the petitioner having admitted the issuance of cheque issued by her and also the signature on the cheque, the petitioner has to prove her defence in so far as her case that she gave the blank cheque to the complainant''s wife. No evidence is placed in this behalf. Apart from this the petitioner also has given the impression to the Court below that she is not a reliable witness, because in her examination in chief she has sworn to the effect that no notice was issued by the complainant but in the cross examination she admit that notice was served to her and she did not reply to the said notice.

For all the aforesaid reasons, as no material is placed by the accused even to remotely accept her defence version, the Court below committed no error in convicting the petitioner and sentencing him as aforesaid. No case is made out for this Court to remand the case.

The petition is dismissed as devoid of merits.