AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This revision petition is directed against the concurrent judgments of the courts below holding the petitioner herein guilty of the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,40,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months.
The complainant initiated proceedings against the revision petitioner herein on the specific averment that the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as hand loan and in repayment thereof, issued the cheque in question for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of Mysore, B.D. Road Branch, Chitradurga and when the said cheque was presented for encashment, the same came to be dishonoured as "funds insufficient".
There is no dispute that the statutory requirements prescribed under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act are duly complied with by the complainant. The only contention urged in the revision petition is that the Trial Court has laid burden on the accused. It is the submission of the learned counsel that the complainant having not discharged the initial burden cast on him and having not proved before the courts below that he had financial capacity to advance huge sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, as claimed in the complaint, the courts below ought not to have passed the impugned judgments.
In view of the contentions urged by the petitioner, I have gone through the records of the courts below. Though the petitioner has taken up a plea that there was no subsisting debt or liability, it is seen from the records that the accused/petitioner herein has not replied to the demand notice nor has he suggested any specific defence to the complainant. The only suggestion made to PW.1 in the witness-box is that the accused has handed over the blank cheque for a sum of Rs.15,000/- as security and the same is mis-used by the complainant. The accused has not substantiated this plea. It is not forthcoming from the entire evidence as to the transaction or circumstance in which the blank cheque for Rs.15,000/- was given by the petitioner/accused. The accused has not entered into the witness-box to substantiate the alleged defence. With regard to the financial capacity of the complainant, it is elicited in the cross-examination of PW.1 that the complainant had lent the aforesaid sum of Rs.1,00,000/- out of the savings from his hotel business. In view of the said facts, no further proof is necessary with regard to the financial capacity of the petitioner. In the said background, the presumption attached to issuance of cheque as laid down under section 139 comes into play. The petitioner has failed to rebut this presumption even with the standard of preponderance of probability. I do not find any error or illegality in the impugned judgments. Therefore, this is not a fit case for admission.
Hence, the revision petition is dismissed at the admission stage itself.