LAXMI KHADI NIKETAN Vs. T K PALANISAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Animadverting upon the judgment dated 26.9.2006 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court No. II), Salem, in C.A.Nos. 15 to 17 of 2005 confirming the order dated 30.12.2004 passed by the Judicial Magistrate No. I, Salem, in C.C. Nos. 307 to 309 of 2002, these criminal revision cases are focussed.

(2.) All these three criminal revision cases are interconnected and it is quite obvious and axiomatic from the factual position found detailed in the record. Compendiously and precisely, the facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of these criminal revision cases would run thus:

(3.) Being dissatisfied and disconcerted with the judgments of both the Courts below, these revisions have been filed on almost similar grounds, the gist and kernel of them would run thus: Both the Courts below failed to take into consideration the materials on record relating to the business transaction. The presumptions as contemplated under Sections 118 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act were wrongly understood by both the Courts below and expected the accused to prove his innocence, which is not contemplated in law. The statutory presumption under Section 139 of N.I Act is not a matter of course, but there should have been evidence on the complainant's side attracting the presumption. Simply because the Bank official committed mistake in returning the cheques on the ground of 'exceeds arrangements' instead of returning them on the "ground that the cheques were not signed by after thought, as after signing the cheques consciously, A2 cannot try to take shelter or camouflage or conceal his own fault by dishing out one plea or other as though goods were not supplied. Both the Courts below on facts gave findings, warranting no interference in the revision, as it is a trite proposition of law that revisional jurisdiction cannot be exercised by the High Court simply because there are two views are possible or that different view can be taken in the set of facts available. Absolutely there is no perversity or non application of law in understanding and interpreting the evidence by both the Courts below and accordingly, the learned counsel prays for dismissal of the revisions.