K NAZAR Vs. SHANGRILLA FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner/accused challenges the concurrent verdict of guilty and conviction for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act entered into by the courts below.

(2.) THE case of the complainant in brief is as follows: THE accused availed a total loan of Rs.1,20,000/- as per hire purchase agreement for the purchase of vehicle No.KLN 2705 on 03/10/1997. THE accused agreed to remit the amount with interest in 30 instalments at the rate of Rs.5,500/- per month. THE instalments due from 03/07/1998 to 03/06/1999 were defaulted by the accused and when the complainant demanded for money, Ext.P1 cheque for Rs.80,300/- was issued by the accused to the complainant on 15/7/1999 towards the amount due on that date. That cheque, when presented for encashment, was dishonoured by the bank due to insufficiency of funds. THE statutory notice sent to the accused by the complainant was accepted; but no reply has been sent by the accused. THE accused failed to pay the amount also. Hence the complaint was filed by the complainant in the month of September 1999. THE defence taken by the accused was that while availing the loan under the hire purchase agreement the complainant obtained two signed blank cheques and the complainant misused one of the blank signed cheques which was not issued to discharge any debt or liability. It was also the case of the accused that the entire loan amount covered under the hire purchase agreement was discharged by the accused.

(3.) AGAINST the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence imposed by the courts below, this revision petition has been preferred by the accused. The jurisdiction of revision is essentially the power and the duty of superintendence and correction. The crucial question to be decided is whether the findings of fact rendered by the courts below are so grossly erroneous or perverse as to warrant revisional interference. The trial court has entered into a finding of conviction and sentence after considering the oral evidence adduced by the complainant as PW1 and after appreciation of documentary evidence relied on by both sides. The fact that no reply has been sent by the accused even after the acceptance of the lawyer's notice sent on behalf of the complainant and the non-examination of the accused to prove the case of discharge of the amount etc. can be seriously taken note of against the accused. On appreciation of the evidence, both the trial court as well as the appellate court have come to the conclusion that the complainant has proved that Ext.P1 cheque was issued by the accused towards the instalments fell due for the period from 03/07/1998 to 03/06/1999 in favour of the complainant. I find no reason to interfere with the concurrent finding of conviction entered into by the courts below against the revision petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is also in favour of the complainant. The revision petitioner has admitted the issuance of Ext.P1 cheque in favour of the complainant. No evidence has been adduced by the accused to rebut that presumption in favour of the complainant under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Considering these aspects, I find no reason to interfere with the concurrent finding of the courts below that the accused/revision petitioner is guilty for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and convicted him thereunder.