N.C. MRUTHUNJAYA Vs. M.K. SRIKANTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal revision petition is filed under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of Cr.P.C. questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 24.11.2008 passed by Civil Judge(Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Mandya in C.C. No. 1011/2005 and the order dated 19.11.2010 passed by Prl. Sessions Judge, Mandya in Crl. A. No. 124/2008.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the judgment and conviction passed by the learned Magistrate, the accused preferred Crl. A. No. 124/2008 before the Prl. Sessions Judge, Mandya who in -turn upon consideration of the entire material on record, also found the accused guilty for having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act and thereby confirmed the judgment passed by the Magistrate by order dated 19.11.2010. Questioning the legality and correctness of the order passed by both the Courts below, this revision petition is preferred. The only defence of the accused as made out during the course of the arguments is that the cheque in question marked as Ex -P1 was not issued by him and therefore he is not liable to pay the amount shown in the said cheque. Both the Courts below have concurrently held that the cheque in question marked as Ex -P1 was issued by the accused in favour of the complainant towards discharge of his liability. Moreover, it is seen from the records that in response to the demand notice issued by the complainant, accused did not choose to give reply. That was an earliest opportunity for the accused to disclose that the cheque in question was not issued by him. He did not do so. During the course of examination of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., he was asked by the learned Magistrate as to whether he has anything to say, to the said question, his answer was No. That was another opportunity for the accused to say that the cheque in question was not issued by him in favour of the complainant. He did not do so. His silence on both the occasions itself goes to show that the cheque was issued by him towards discharge of his liability in favour of the complainant. Thus both the Courts below have rightly come to the conclusion that the cheque in question was issued by the accused in favour of the complainant towards discharge of his liability. I do not find any reason to call for my interference in the impugned orders passed by both the Courts below. The criminal revision petition is devoid of merits. Accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed.