M. VISHWANATH Vs. B. RAMASWAMY & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and none appears for the respondents.

(2.) Submission of the petitioners' Counsel is that, though both the Courts below have accepted the complainant SL's case and convicted the petitioner in respect of the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner had not borrowed any amount from the complainant nor the petitioner had signed the cheque in question and there was no transaction between the complainant and the petitioner. It is the defence of the petitioner that the cheque was stolen by the complainant's son-in-law and in this regard, the petitioner also had requested the trial Court to send the cheque for handwriting expert's verification, and it was not done.

(3.) Under the above circumstances and also relying on the judgment of this Court reported in 2011 (3) AIR Kar R 434, submission made is that there is enough material placed by the petitioner to rebut the presumption in favour of the complainant and that apart, in respect of transaction above Rs. 20,000.00, amount will have to be paid by way of cheque. For all these reasons, the judgments of the Courts below be set aside.