KALA Vs. JAYAKUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against concurrent findings of guilt of the revision petitioner by Judicial First Class Magistrate Court- XII, Thiruvananthapruam (for short 'the trial court') in C.C.No.1108/2017 and Additional Court of Sessions-II, Thiruvananthapuram (for short 'the appellate court') in Crl.Appeal No.81/2020.

(2.) The revision petitioner is the accused. It is contended by the learned counsel that the disputed cheque actually was given to the husband of the complainant as security for a transaction with him. The liability for which the cheque was given as security was fully discharged but, the cheque was retained and misusing it the prosecution was launched through the wife. According to him, the cheque in question was not supported by consideration and for that reason itself the prosecution fails.

(3.) This Court has found from the impugned judgments that issuance of a signed cheque is admitted by the revision petitioner. Her only case was that it was given to the husband of the complainant to discharge a totally different liability. Accordingly she denied the transaction alleged by the complainant and issuance of the cheque towards the liability arisen from that. Position of law is now settled by the Apex Court in Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar [2019 (1) KHC 774 (SC)] that once voluntary issuance of cheque is admitted, the presumptions under Ss. 118(a) and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'NI Act') would be attracted in favour of the complainant and the onus then will shift to the revision petitioner to establish the defence set up in the case that the disputed cheque given as security was misused in the case on hand and prosecution in question was filed.