AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V. Jagannathan, J.—This Criminal Revision Petition is by the accused, who has been convicted by the trial court in respect of the offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and was directed to pay Rs. 3,05,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The lower appellate court dismissed the Criminal Appeal preferred by the Petitioner.
I have heard learned Counsel Shri P. Dhananjaya for the petit toners and learned Counsel Shri H.K. Thiremegowda for the Respondent-complainant.
The case of the Respondent-complainant, in short, is that, the first Petitioner herein had purchased rice from the complainant and in that connection, the first Petitioner owed a sum of Rs. 62,976/- and coupled with the penalty, the total amount was Rs. 2.51,904/-. The Petitioner issued three cheques in this connection and they were taken back later and one cheque as per Ex.P-2 was issued by the Petitioner to the complainant for Rs. 2,51,904/-. The said cheque, on presentation, was returned with "insufficient funds" endorsement. Thereafter, after due notice, the complainant went before the trial court and filed his complaint u/s 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After appearance of the accused, the trial court recorded the evidence of both sides and took note of the documents produced and convicted the Petitioner u/s 138 of the N.I. Act. The lower appellate court confirmed the trial court''s judgment.
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner argued that the Petitioner had paid the amount due to the complainant and without paying the market fee, transportation permit would not be granted. It is, therefore, clear that the Petitioner had paid the necessary market fee. Therefore, the courts below were in error in holding that the Petitioner had not paid the market fee. It is also the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the courts below did not consider the documents produced by the Petitioner. One more submission made is that, the Petitioner was forced to admit the issuance of cheque in question. For all these reasons, the petition be allowed.
On the other hand, the submission of the learned Counsel for the Respondent is that, both the courts below have found the evidence placed by the complainant convincing and acceptable and the cheque in question Ex.P-2 was not disputed by the accused. The amount due by the Petitioner viz., three times the market value plus penalty added upto Rs. 2,51,904/- and this is admitted by the Petitioner himself and the courts below have taken note of the said admission. As such, the question of the A.P.M.C. having threatened the Petitioner does not arise. In the light of the evidence placed by the complainant, the courts below have rightly convicted the Petitioner.
Having thus heard both sides and after going through the judgments of the courts below and in particularly the lower appellate court observing at page-8 of its judgment that, during the cross-examination, the accused had clearly admitted that he had issued the cheque Ex.F-2 to the complainant towards payment of Rs. 2,51,904/- towards market fee and penalty, the view taken by the courts below, therefore, is consistent, with the evidence on record. The further fact is that, the accused had not lodged any complaint alleging that he was threatened and forced to issue the cheque Ex.P-2 nor any such statement is made by the accused in his reply notice Ex.P-11.
Thus, the over all evidence on record does not give scope for the Petitioner to contend that the Petitioner was not liable to pay Rs. 2,51,904/- in the face of his own admission during cross-examination. That apart, as the findings of the courts below are concurrent in nature, unless it is shown that the said findings suffer from the defect of perversity, this Court, in revision, cannot interfere with such concurrent findings. In the instant ease, no such material is placed to show that the findings recorded by the courts below are perverse in nature.
The revision petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.