APPAJI Vs. SRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision petition is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C. challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence of the petitioner/accused in C.C.No.6837/2003 by order dated 28.2.2008 on the file of XIX Addl. CMM, Bangalore City, convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act and sentencing him to pay fine of Rs.8.00 lakhs and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and challenging the judgment in Crl.A.No.314/2008 dated 6.7.2010 on the file of Fast Track Court -IX, Bangalore City, confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Magistrate.

(2.) THE revision petitioner was the accused in C.C.No.6837/2003 and the respondent was the complainant. The complainant is a finance company. The accused approached the company for loan in order to purchase a vehicle. Accordingly, the complainant company granted loan to the accused, who in -turn purchased a vehicle bearing registration No.KA -01 -A - 2347 under Higher Purchase agreement. But, as per the terms and conditions of the agreement, the accused failed to pay the loan amount. Finally, he was found due to pay a sum of Rs.5,75,765/ -. When he was called upon to pay the balance amount, he issued a cheque for Rs.5,75,765/ - drawn on Canara Bank, Vasanthnagar, Bangalore. On presentation, the cheque came to be dishonoured. After informing the accused about the dishonour of the cheque and since the accused failed to pay the cheque amount even after expiry of the period of 15 days from the date of receipt of legal notice issued to him, a complaint came to be filed for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act against the accused. The accused having denied the charge levelled against him, the complainant company in order to establish their case, examined one M.R. Madhusudhan as PW -1 and placed reliance on 12 documents marked as Ex -P1 to P12. The accused on the other hand got himself examined as DW -1 and relied upon 12 documents marked as Ex -D1 to D12. The learned Magistrate upon hearing both the learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon consideration of the entire evidence placed on record by his judgment dated 28.2.2008 convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Criminal Appeal filed by the accused challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence in Crl.A.No.314/2008 on the file of Fast Track Court -IX, Bangalore city, came to be dismissed by judgment dated 6.7.2010 confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner -accused would submit that the cheque in question was not issued by him towards discharge of his liability. On the other hand, it was issued as security while obtaining loan in order to purchase two buses and the complainant missued the said cheque, though there was no liability on the part of the accused. The learned counsel further submitted that the accused was not at all served with notice and since the legal notice was not at all served upon the accused, there was no cause of action for the complainant to file a complaint, apart from contending that the complaint filed by the complainant M/s.Sriram Transport Limited is not maintainable, since the cheque in question is in the name of Sriram Investment and hence for all these reasons, the counsel appearing for the accused has sought to allow the revision petition and to set -aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by both the Courts below.