SATHISH Vs. VASANTHA A. SALIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) THE petitioner was the accused before the Trial Court for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the NI Act', for brevity). It was alleged that the petitioner had borrowed a loan of Rs. 83,000/ - in the year 2005 and that he had agreed to repay the same. When there was failure to do so and on repeated demands, a cheque had been issued for a sum of Rs. 83,000/ - dated 12.10.2007 and when the cheque had been presented for encashment, it was returned with the Banker's endorsement that the funds were insufficient in the account. On this, the respondent had issued a notice under Section 138 of the NI Act and when the petitioner had failed to meet the demand, the complaint had followed. The petitioner had entered appearance on summons being served and had contested the matter denying the transaction and negating the complaint on several grounds. The Trial Court having found the petitioner guilty and having convicted him and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 1,25,000/ - of which Rs. 1,22,000/ - was to be paid as compensation to the respondent. The same was challenged in appeal. The Appellate Court had confirmed and affirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. It is that which is under challenge in the present petition.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand would point out that insofar as these contentions are concerned, they were all defences that were urged both before the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court and that findings of fact having been arrived at concurrently, there is no warrant for re -consideration of the grounds before this Court. While he would also point out that insofar as the grounds which are repeatedly urged also, are not tenable for the reason that the alternative contention of the petitioner to the effect that there was no loan transaction and the cheque which has come into the hands of the petitioner was in the circumstance that it had been issued to a third party and it was a blank cheque which is sought to be misused by the petitioner, are self -serving claims. There is no substance in the same and the fact that the loan was of the year 2005 and the cheque was of the year 2007 is also explained by the fact that because there was default on the part of the petitioner in repaying the amount, on repeated demands, the cheque came to be issued in the year 2007.