LAWS(MAD)-2019-4-661

OPAL INDUSTRIES Vs. S.B.ENGINEERING

Decided On April 24, 2019
Opal Industries Appellant
V/S
S.B.Engineering Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) The matter arising out of complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. The accused is the petitioner herein who has suffered the concurrent finding of the Court below holding that the cheques issued by him to the complainant/respondent is given to discharge an enforceable debt and having failed to honour it, he is liable to be punished. Accordingly, the trial Court has imposed one year S.I and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default three months S.I, which was confirmed by the Lower Appellate Court.

(3.) The short point raised by the revision petitioner is that the Courts below have failed to consider the evidence properly and by mis- application of law had held the accused guilty on the ground that he has not rebutted the presumption under Section 139 Negotiable and Instrument Act. Wherein, the Courts below has failed to consider that there was business transaction between him and the respondent, long time ago and the cheques issued as security has been misused. The debt alleged to have been incurred for purchase of machineries covered under invoices marked as Ex.P.1 series, not been proved by the complainant by supportive documents, such as delivery challan and delivery acknowledgement. While so, the Courts below taking extraneous consideration, rejected the plea taken by the accused, despite rebutting the presumption and failure of the complainant to prove enforceable debt through accounts and records. However, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/complainant would submit that the mere denial of enforceable debt is not sufficient to rebut the presumption as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rangappa Vs.Sri Mohan Case. Both the Courts below on facts and law has held in favour of the complainant. When there is no illegality or perversity in the finding of the Courts below, the scope of revisional jurisdiction is very limited and cannot be interfered.