H N ERANNA Vs. SRIMATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER, who was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months as well pay the cheque amount as compensation to the complainant, having succeeded in part in an appeal filed, has filed this criminal revision petition.

(2.) MR.K.Hanumantharayappa, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner contended that the order of conviction passed by the learned Magistrate and confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge are illegal since the ingredients of offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act has not been made out by the complainant. Alternatively, the learned counsel contended that the modified sentence imposed by the appellate Court is also harsh having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case.

(3.) COMPLAINANT has deposed as PW-1. Venkatakrishna, the Manager of the Bank on which the cheque Ex.P1 was drawn has deposed as PW-2. Ex.P1 is a cheque issued by the petitioner to the complainant. The said cheque was returned un-honored, as is evident from Exs.P2 and P3, Bank endorsements. A demand notice was issued within the prescribed period to make payment of cheque amount. Notice was sent both by certificate of posting and RPAD. Cheque amount having not been paid, complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C was filed. Learned Magistrate having found that the defence of the accused is not probable and there being no dispute with regard to issuance of Ex.P1, by raising presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act, has rightly convicted the accused- petitioner for the offence under Section 138 read with 142 of the Act. The finding of fact recorded by the learned Magistrate has rightly been affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, since the petitioner has not been able to point-out any material error having been committed by the learned Magistrate in the matter of holding the petitioner guilty. The concurrent finding of fact recorded by the Courts below having evidentiary support, does not warrant interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.