DHAKSHAYANI Vs. MALATHI DAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Questioning an order of conviction and the consequential sentence imposed by the !earned Magistrate for an offence under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'the Act') and having failed in CrI.A.No.25124/2010, on the file of the Sessions Court at Bangalore, accused has filed this criminal revision petition. Sri Hiremathad, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been convicted for an offence under S.138 of the Act, when the ingredients necessarily to be established have not been established by the respondent-complainant. Learned counsel submitted that the defence of the accused has not been correctly appreciated and hence, impugned Judgments being perverse, interference in the matter is necessary.

(2.) Sri M.D. Raghunath, learned advocate appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, contended that the issuance of Ex.P1 being not in dispute and that the same having been returned by the bank, where after a demand was made and the payment having not been made, complaint was filed and the offence committed by the accused having been established by the evidence of PW-1, and on the basis of Exs. P1 to P17, learned Magistrate is justified in finding the accused guilty and in imposing the sentence. Learned counsel submitted that the appellate Court has re-appreciated the evidence and the appeal having been found to be devoid of merit, was dismissed. Learned counsel submits that in view of the concurrent finding of fact by the Courts below, no interference in the matter is called for.

(3.) Perused the record. In view of the rival contentions, point for consideration is, whether the Courts below are justified in holding the petitioner guilty of an offence under S.138 of the Act?