Sri. J.P. Sharma vs Globe Transport Corporation Laxmi Complex

N. Ananda, J.—There are concurrent findings of the courts below that respondent (complainant) has proved that petitioner (accused) has committed an offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The law is fairly well settled, this court while exercising revisional jurisdiction u/s 401 Cr.P.C., does not sit as a court second appeal. This court can interfere with the impugned judgment if the courts below have committed glaring errors in appreciation of evidence or errors of law resulting manifest injustice to aggrieved party.

Sri. Lakshminarayan Rao, learned counsel for petitioner has made following submissions:

I That the petitioner was one of the partners of M/s. Globe Transport Corporation and he retired from the Partnership firm on 22.10.2002.

II The complainant has made use of the blank signed cheque which the petitioner had left with the partnership firm (complainant)

III The trailer which was alleged to have been sold by the complainant in favour of accused infact, continued to be with the complainant after petitioner retired from the Partnership firm as aforestated.

Sri. S.G. Bhagawan, learned counsel for respondent taking me through evidence would justify the impugned judgment.

As could be seen from the tenor of cross-examination of witnesses by the complainant and stand taken by the accused and answers given by him when examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C., the accused has made an unsuccessful attempt to establish that he had given blank signed cheque to the complainant when he was one of the partners of complainant and complainant has misused the same to initiate present complaint.

It is not in dispute and cannot be disputed that petitioner retired from the Partnership firm (complainant) on 22.10.2002. The notice caused by complainant on 26.06.2007 would reveal that petitioner had entered into certain contract with the Department of Posts and he was in need of a trailer. Therefore, he had promised to return the trailer after execution of the work. Contrary to this, after execution of work, he had sold the trailer to third parties. In this connection, complainant had demanded the accused to pay a sum of Rs. 6,86,000/- (Rs. 4,50,000/- towards principle and Rs. 2,36,000/- towards interest)

It is the case of complainant that in pursuance of such demand, accused had issued a cheque for a sum of Rs. 6,86,0000/- on 21.07.2007. On presentation, the cheque was dishonored for want of funds. The legal notice caused by the complainant on 10.08.2007 was received by the accused but there was no response from the accused.

The accused had not stepped into the witness box in order to adduce evidence to prove that he had given blank signed cheque to the complainant when he was one of the partners of Partnership firm (complainant). It is difficult to believe that he had given blank cheque to the firm (complainant) of which he was one of the partners. In the absence of evidence of accused to substantiate this theory, the issuance of blank signed cheque to the firm when he was one of the partners of the firm, the presumption available u/s 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act stands unrebutted.

The accused had also made an unsuccessful attempt to establish that complainant has made use of signed cheque which infact was issued by the complainant in the year 2000. As already stated, accused has not bothered to adduce evidence He has not bothered to cross-examine the complainant on these aspects. The courts below have rightly rejected the defense of accused.

On reconsideration of the matter, I find that the accused has failed to rebut the presumption available u/s 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The courts below have not committed errors in appreciation of evidence. There are no reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment. The Revision Petition is dismissed.