SUJATHA B.A. Vs. H.B. VEENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner who is before this Court challenging the concurrent findings of both the courts below in respect of a complaint for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the NI Act', for brevity).

(2.) THE facts alleged are, that the petitioner had borrowed a sum of Rs. 6,16,000/ - on 13.12.2006 from the respondent, in order to enable her to purchase a house site. She is said to be a Doctor of Ayurvedic Medicine and was running a clinic and therefore, she wanted to build a house close to her clinic and hence, had borrowed the money. She had agreed to repay the same within two months and had issued a cheque in discharge of the loan, dated 9.2.2007. It is the case of the complainant that the cheque when presented for encashment, it was returned with the Banker's endorsement that the funds in the Account were insufficient.

(3.) AFTER having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and on a perusal of the judgments of the courts below, the findings are clearly findings of fact and the circumstance that the cheque in question is not denied by the petitioner as having been issued on her Account and she also not having denied the signature on the cheque, but to claim that it had been issued in favour of another and therefore, was misused, was clearly a defence, the burden of proof of which was on the petitioner. Since that has not been done to the satisfaction of both the courts below, there is hardly scope for this Court to re -appreciate the evidence in this revision petition, when this Court is not sitting in appeal over the judgments of the courts below. Therefore, there is no merit in this petition on facts.