LAKSHMIDEVAMMA Vs. SRI H.R. REVAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE are concurrent findings of courts below that petitioner (accused) has committed an offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'the Act'). This court while exercising revisional jurisdiction under section 401 Cr.P.C., does not sit as a court of second appeal. This court can interfere with the impugned judgment if the courts below have committed glaring errors in appreciation of evidence or errors of law resulting manifest injustice to petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner (accused) has sought to rebut the evidence adduced by respondent (complainant) on the ground that respondent (complainant) has failed to prove existence of legally recoverable debt. On the other hand, the petitioner has contended that he had given a blank cheque to respondent (complainant), who had assured to get police job to the son of younger sister of petitioner (accused). The trial court on appreciation of evidence has held this is a false plea put forth by petitioner (accused).

(3.) THE courts below on proper appreciation of evidence have recorded concurrent findings and arrived at proper conclusions. There are no reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment. The revision petition is dismissed.