CHANDRASHEKHAR SHETTY Vs. JANARDHANA KHARVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT filed a complaint against petitioner under S.200 of Cr.P.C. alleging commission of offence under S.138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act ("the Act" for short). Petitioner/accused appeared and pleaded not guilty. Complainant deposed as PW.1. Complaint was marked as Ex.C1. Ex.P1 is the cheque in question issued by the petitioner. Signature of the accused is at Ex.P1(a). Cheque was returned and the endorsement of the bank is at Ex.P2. Demand notice is Ex.P3 and the postal receipt is Ex.P4. Accused was examined under S.313 Cr.P.C. and it is a case of denial. He deposed later as DW.1 and produced an agreement which is marked as Ex.D1.

(2.) CONSIDERING the rival contentions and the record of the case, learned Magistrate found the accused guilty. Acting under S.255(2) Cr.P.C., the accused was convicted and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Rs.95,000/- from the fine amount, when realised, was ordered to be paid to the complainant as compensation. Feeling aggrieved, the accused filed Crl.A.No.181/2008 in the Sessions Court at Udupi. Case was assigned to Fast Track Court at Udupi. Appeal having been found to be devoid of merit, was dismissed on 8.2.2010. However, the sentence imposed on the petitioner was modified. The fine amount payable was determined at Rs.55,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Rs.50,000/- out of the fine amount, when realised, was directed to be paid to the complainant, by way compensation. Feeling aggrieved, the accused has filed this Criminal Revision Petition.

(3.) PETITIONER/accused does not dispute the fact of issuance of Ex.P1 and his signature thereon marked as Ex.P1(a). Cheque was returned by the petitioner's bank vide Ex.P2. Demand notice was sent vide Ex.P3, to pay the cheque amount. There is not even a reply. Case of the accused is one of discharge. No material has been produced in proof of the discharge. In the circumstances, presumption under S.139 of the Act has not been rebutted by the accused while deposing as DW.1. The defence sought to be putforth being not probable, learned Magistrate is justified in finding the accused guilty of the offence under S.138 of the Act. The appeal being devoid of merit has rightly been dismissed by the Appellate Court. The conviction of petitioner for the offence under S.138 r/w 142 of the Act is flawless.