SRI V. RAGHAVENDRA RAO Vs. THUKARAM S. RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revision petitions arise out of common judgment of the Courts below. As the parties to these petitions are common, these petitions were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.

(2.) In these two revision petitions filed under Section 397(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has challenged the legality and correctness of the common judgment and order dated 28.4.2007 passed by the II Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Mangaiore In C.C. Nos. 484/2006 and 485/2006 convicting the petitioner/accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentencing him to pay tine of L 32,000/- and L 1.10,000/- respectively in each of these cases and judgment dated 27.7.2010 passed by the Principal Session. Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore in Crl. A. Nos. 131 /2007 and 132/2007 dismissing the appeals filed by the petitioner and affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court.

(3.) The common respondent tiled two complaints against the common petitioner alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, According to the case of the complainant, he is a Chartered Accountant, by profession, so also the accused and they carried on the said profession in partnership from 1995 to. 2002 at Mangalore in a rented premises which he had taken on rent earner by paying an advance of L 22,000/- to the landlord of the premises and with effect from 31.3.2003, the partnership came to an end and at that time it was agreed that, the accused should pay L 22.000/- to the complainant being the refund of the advance he had paid to the landlord of the premises and also a sum of L 1 lakh towards the share of the goodwill of the complainant in the partnership business. In pursuance to the said agreement, the accused issued two cheques one for L 22.000/- and another for L 1 lakh promising that those cheques will he honoured when presented for encashment. But when the cheques were presented for encashment they were returned with the banker's endorsement 'insufficient funds' and inspite of service of notices, the accused failed to pay the amount covered under the cheques. The accused pleaded not guilty for the accusations made against him in each of the cases and claimed to be tried. The power of attorney holder of the complainant was examined as P.W. 1 to substantiate the case of the complainant and also produced documentary evidence as per Exs. P 1 to P 13. In defence, the accused examined himself as DW 1 and produced Ex. D1 a copy of the acknowledgement for having filed the Saral form, to the Income Tax Department.