A R MOHAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PUBLIC Prosecutor takes notice for respondent No. 1. Notice to Respondent No. 2 is dispensed with in view of the order I am proposing to pass in this revision which is not prejudicial to respondent No. 2.

(2.) PETITIONER challenges the concurrent findings entered against him as to the due execution of the cheque for the legally enforceable debt/liability and his failure to rebut the presumption under Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act (for short, "the Act")

(3.) ACCORDING to respondent No. 2 petitioner owed Rs. 2,00,000/- and for the discharge of that liability issued Ext. P1, cheque on 10. 1. 2006. On presentation the cheque was returned as payment was stopped. That, the cheque was returned as payment was stopped and there was no sufficient amount in the account of the petitioner are proved by Exts. P2, P3 and P7. Issue and service of notice are proved by Exts. P4 to P6. Respondent No. 2 gave evidence as P. W. 1 and testified to his case. According to the petitioner there was no transaction between him and respondent No. 2 He does not also know respondent No. 2. He denied that he issued cheque in favour of respondent No. 2. Courts below were not inclined to accept that contention of the petitioner. So far as due execution the cheque is concerned though petitioner denied that he wrote or signed the cheque it is pertinent to note that dishonour of the cheque was not for the reason of any dissimilarity in the signature of the petitioner with the signature of the holder of the account. There is no serious challenge to the evidence of respondent No. 2 as to the fact that Ext. P1 contained signature of the petitioner. Petitioner did not explain how else cheque drawn on his account came in the custody of respondent No. 2. Courts below observed that there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of respondent No. 2. It is also to be noted that in spite of getting statutory notice, petitioner did not reply to it. Petitioner has failed to rebut the presumption under Sec. 139 of the Act as well. In the circumstance there is no reason to interfere with the conviction of the petitioner under Sec. 138 of the act.