Sri K. Bhakthavatsalam vs Sri S. Manjunath Reddy Sri S. Manjunath Reddy Vs Sri K. Bhakthavatsalam

V. Jagannathan, J.—These two Criminal Revision Petitions arise out of one and the same judgment of the trial court, which had convicted the Petitioner in Crl.R.P. No. 545/2011 u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and ordered him to pay Rs. 4,00,000/- as fine and the lower appellate court confirmed the conviction, but reduced the fine amount to Rs. 3,10,000/-

Learned Counsel Shri Shaikh Saoud for the Petitioner in Crl.R.P. No. 545/2011 at the outset submitted that the trial court did not take cognizance of the offence in accordance with law and only the blank forms are filled up and, as such, cognizance taken is not correct. On the merits of the case, it is argued by him that, though the complainant; who is the Petitioner in Crl.R.P. No. 578/2011, contends that he had given Rs. 2,50,000/- to the accused, he does not say as to when he gave the amount and at which place and apart from that, in the evidence of P.W.1, the complainant, it has been brought out during the cross-examination that the complainant is an Income Tax payee, but No. document is produced to show payment of Rs. 2,50,000/- to the accused. Therefore, the trial court could not have accepted the case of the complainant.

Apart from the above submission, it is also argued that the case of the defence was that, the accused had lost two cheques while he was travelling in a bus and, therefore, the complainant must have made use of the lost cheques. For the aforesaid reasons, the learned Counsel sought for the matter being remitted to the trial court for fresh disposal.

On the other hand, the submission of Shri M.S. Bhagwath for the complainant, who is the Petitioner in Crl.R.P. No. 578/2011, is that, the courts below have considered the entire evidence and have found that the cheque Ex.P-1 was issued by the accused and the said cheque got returned with stop payment and thereafter, after due notice, complaint was lodged and even in the course of evidence, No. rebuttal evidence is placed by the accused to rebut the presumption in favour of the complainant. But, on the other hand, the defence itself has suggested to P.W.1 during cross-examination that the cheque Ex.P-1 was signed by the accused and the contents are written by the accused himself in his own hand. Therefore, the question of the complainant having signed the blank cheque does not arise. Moreover, the defence theory that two cheques were lost while the accused was travelling in a bus is contrary to his own case that the entire cheque book containing ten leaves is lost. Therefore, the conviction of the accused is just and proper.

As far as the lower appellate court reducing the fine amount is concerned, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the complainant that the cheque amount being Rs. 2,50,000/- and the cheque having been issued in 2004, the judgment of the trial court having passed in 2010 after six years, the trial court was justified in imposing Rs. 4,00.000/- as fine and the lower appellate court could not have reduced it to Rs. 3,10,000/-.

Having thus heard both sides, insofar as the first contention put forward by the learned Counsel for the accused is concerned, the Petitioner-accused took part in the entire proceedings before the trial court without any objection whatsoever with regard to the manner of taking cognizance and thereafter, even before the lower appellate court, the accused did not advance any ground of cognizance taken being not in accordance with law and finally, even in these petitions before this Court, No. such ground is forthcoming. As such, the first contention put forward by the learned Counsel for the accused will have to be rejected as having No. basis.

As far as the merits of the case is concerned, the complainant has produced Ex.P-1 cheque and it is for Rs. 2,50,000/- and the cheque, on being presented was returned by the bank with step payment endorsement. As far as the signature is concerned it is not in dispute that it was signed by the accused and the theory put forward by the accused that blank cheque was misused by the complainant is also rendered futile by the very suggestion put to P.W.1 during the course of cross-examination. The lower appellate court has extracted the suggestions put, which are as under:

It is true to suggest that in my presence in one and the same pen accused written the contents of the disputed cheque and issued the same to my hand.

In view of the above suggestion being put to P.W.1 on behalf of the accused, it is established that the accused had not issued any blank cheque nor has lost any blank cheque. Therefore, the courts below had No. difficulty in accepting the case of the complainant, and convicting the accused u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as there was No. rebuttal evidence placed by the accused to rebut the presumption in favour of the complainant.

As far as the lower appellate court reducing the fine amount is concerned, the cheque amount is Rs. 2,50,000/- and it was issued in 2004 and the trial court had imposed Rs. 4.00,000/- as fine amount, but No. reasons were forthcoming for fixing the said amount and the lower appellate court, taking note of this and also having regard to the expenses incurred by the complainant and the period of litigation, however, thought it fit to reduce the amount to Rs. 3,10,000/- out of which Rs. 3,00,000/- was to be paid to the complainant. I see valid reasons given by the lower appellate court in reducing the amount to Rs. 3,10,000/- as against Rs. 4,00,000/-. However, the said amount is increased to Rs. 3,20,000/- out of which Rs. 3,10,000/- shall be paid to the complainant and Rs. 10,000/- shall go to the State exchequer. In other words, the total amount of fine is reduced to Rs. 3.20,000/- from Rs. 4,00,000/-. Therefore, the appeal filed by the complainant will have to be partly allowed.

In the result, Crl.R.P. No. 545/2011 is dismissed, whereas Crl.R.P. No. 578/2011 is allowed in part to the extent of the fine amount being marginally increased to Rs. 3,20,000/- from Rs. 3.10,000/- The amount in deposit before this Court be released in favour of the complainant.