SATISH SHETTY Vs. VICTOR D'SOUZA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner who has been convicted and sentenced for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'the Act'), has filed this criminal revision petition. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner contended that the respondent has not made out the ingredients of Section 138 of the Act and the conviction and sentence of the petitioner by learned Magistrate is wholly erroneous and that the Appellate Court has not considered the matter in correct perspective and hence, interference in the matter is called for.

(2.) On the other hand, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent submitted that there is correct appreciation of the materials on record and that the issuance of cheque being not in dispute and the same having been issued in discharge of the debt due, the bank having returned the cheque and there being presumption under Section 139 of the Act, in the absence of any probable defence, the Courts below are justified in finding the petitioner-accused guilty and as a result, passing order of conviction and appropriate sentence. Learned Counsel submitted that there being concurrent finding of fact, no interference in the matter is called for.

(3.) Record would indicate that Ex. P. 1-cheque was issued by the petitioner. The evidence would indicate that the cheque has been issued for discharge of the liability. Ex. P. 1 having been presented within the period of 6 months from the date on which it was drawn, was returned by the bank unpaid, as is evident from Ex. P. 2. Demand notice vide Ex. P. 4 was issued immediately. There being no payment, the complaint was filed within the period of limitation.