S.R. Krishnamurthy Rao & Others vs Ramanjaneya

H.P. Sandesh, J

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent.

This revision petition is filed against the order of conviction passed in C.C.No.20116/2011, wherein the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that cheque which has been issued has been admitted and the defence which has been taken by the petitioners that the complainant has forcibly taken the signature has not been proved and convicted the petitioners to pay Rs.5,05,000/- and out of that, Rs.5,00,000/-has to be paid to the complainant as compensation.

Being aggrieved by the judgment and conviction, an appeal is filed in Crl.A.No.700/2014. The Appellate Court formulated the points whether the Trial Court has committed any error in appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, whether the Trial Court has committed any error in holding that complainant has proved that accused for discharge of legality enforceable debt issued cheque at Ex.P1 and whether the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence requires interference and all the points formulated are answered as ‘negative’ and concurred with the finding of the Trial Court. Hence, this revision petition is filed before this Court.

Learned counsel for the revision petitioners would vehemently contend that both the Courts failed to consider the material available on record while appreciating both oral and documentary evidence and hurriedly passed the judgment of conviction and dismissed the appeal. It is also contended that the Trial Court and the Appellate Court failed to understand that the evidence of the petitioners is mandatory in the Trial Court and the complainant has not proved the same and failed to consider the answers elicited from the mouth of the witnesses and also failed to consider the defence which has been taken. Learned counsel for the petitioners also brought to notice of this Court that payment which has been made in terms of the agreement has not been proved and inspite of the same, the Trial Court and the Appellate Court committed an error in relying upon the document of Ex.P1 and also the endorsement made on Ex.P10(a) and committed an error. Hence, it requires interference of this Court by exercising the revisional jurisdiction.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that there was agreement of sale in respect of land which belongs to petitioner No.1 and the petitioner No.2, who happens to be the wife of the petitioner No.1 is also examined before the Trial Court as D.W.2 and she also categorically admitted that her husband entered into a agreement of sale and cheque belongs to her. It is further contended that though the petitioners took the contention that forcibly cheque was taken and endorsement is obtained but, clearly admitted in the evidence that no complaint is given either before the police or before the Court or before any other authority for having taken the cheque forcibly and the same has been appreciated by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court and it does not require any interference of this Court.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent, this revision petition is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court. The scope of the revision is very limited and only if the order suffers from any illegality, correctness and propriety of the order, under such circumstances, the Court can interfere with the findings of the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court.

Having considered the grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel for the respondent, the points that would arise for consideration of this Court are:

(1) Whether the Trial Court committed an error in convicting the petitioners herein and whether the Appellate Court committed an error in confirming the same?

(2) Whether the judgment suffers from its legality, correctness and propriety of the order?

(3) What order?

POINT NOS.(1) AND (2)

Having perused the material available on record, though the petitioners dispute the sale agreement, the same is admitted by D.W.2, who is the petitioner No.2 before this Court and her evidence is very clear that cheque belongs to her and categorical admission is given in the evidence itself that her husband is having a site bearing No.123 at Nagarabhavi and there was agreement of sale in the year 2007 and cheque belongs to her and signature also belongs to her. She also categorically admits that signature found in Ex.P1(a) and Ex.P10 are similar. When such admission is given with regard to issuance of Ex.P1-cheque and the endorsement also clearly discloses that sale agreement was cancelled, however in terms of the agreement between the parties, the document of sale deed was not executed and only refunded the advance money by way of cheque in favour of other purchaser to the tune of Rs.3,50,000/- and in respect of this complainant, cheque for Rs.5,00,000/- was given. When the signature found in Ex.P10(a) as well as Ex.P1(a) are admitted by P.W.1, the same has been appreciated by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court and when the cheque, signature on the cheque and the endorsement is admitted, burden is on the petitioners to disprove the case of the complainant. Hence, there is a presumption in favour of the complainant under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the said presumption has to be rebutted, since the same is a rebuttable presumption and no such rebuttal evidence is placed before the Trial Court.

Apart from that, though the petitioners took the contention that signatures are obtained on Ex.P1(a) and Ex.P10(a) forcibly, no complaint is given and the same is admitted in the cross-examination of D.W.2, wherein she categorically admits that no complaint was given either before the police or before any Court or any other authority. When such being the case, the very defence has not been substantiated and this aspect has been considered by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court.

The learned counsel also submits that in terms of Ex.P10, the payment is totally amounting to Rs.3,27,000/- in terms of cash and Rs.1,50,000/- by way of cheque by the complainant herein has not been established and the said contention cannot be accepted since, D.W.2 i.e., the petitioner No.2 categorically admitted the endorsement in Ex.P10(a), wherein endorsement is made with regard to cancellation of sale agreement and refund of earnest money by issuing the cheque. When such endorsement is made in Ex.P10 which is marked as Ex.P10(a), the very contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted since, the signatures in both the document of Ex.P1 and Ex.P10(a) are admitted as similar.

The material on record i.e., both oral and documentary evidence placed on record establishes the fact that there was sale transaction and agreement of sale was entered into between the partiers in terms of Ex.P10 and admitted the sale agreement and issuance of cheque and the records also disclose that no reply was given to the notice issued. When such materials are available on record, I do not find any ground to interfere with the findings of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court by exercising the revisional jurisdiction since, the judgment of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court not suffers from its legality, correctness and propriety of the order. Hence, no grounds are made out to allow the revision petition. Accordingly, I answer point Nos.(1) and (2) as ‘negative’.

POINT NO.(3)

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:

ORDER

The revision petition is dismissed.