THARANATH KARKERA Vs. JOHN MARY MENDONCA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent served but remained absent.

(2.) The revision petitioner is the accused before the JMFC, (IV court), Mangaluru, in CC. No. 2593/2008, who was convicted for the offence under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 66,000/ - with a default clause to under go S.I. for a period of six months. The trial court also ordered Rs. 65,000/ - to be paid as compensation out of the fine amount to the complainant. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the accused(petitioner herein) preferred an appeal before the VI Addl. District & Sessions Judge, D.K. Mangaluru, in Crl. A. No. 62/2014. After re -evaluation and appreciation of the facts, the first Appellate court has confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court by dismissing the appeal filed by the accused. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner -accused is before this court.

(3.) On careful evaluation of the materials on record, both the courts below have recorded their findings on the facts of the case. There is a very remote power vested with the revisional court to re -appreciate the evidence on record. The case of the complainant is that the accused has borrowed a sum of Rs. 60,000/ - on 4.3.2005 and for repayment of the same, he has issued a cheque dated 8.9.2005. On presentation, it came to be dishonoured. After issuing legal notice in accordance with law, as the accused has not complied with the notice nor replied the said notice, a private complaint came to be lodged. In pursuance of the summons issued by the court, the accused appeared before the court and contested the proceedings. He never denied the signature on the cheque nor the dishonour of the said cheque by the bankers and he has also never denied that the said cheque does not pertain to his account etc., He has taken up a specific defence that he has borrowed a sum of Rs. 10,000/ - from one Sumith Raj and issued the said cheque in favour of Sumit Raj as a security for the repayment of the said amount of Rs. 10,000/ -. He has denied any transaction between himself and the complainant.