NILESH RAMPANT CHAUDHARI Vs. MITTAL ELECTRONICS PARTNERSHIP FIRM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge is to the judgment and order dated 14.12.2016 rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge-2, Akola in Criminal Appeal 79/2015, by and under which, the judgment of conviction and sentence recorded in Summary Criminal Case 1941/2012 by the learned Magistrate on 30.06.2015 is upheld.

(2.) Both the courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the signature on the disputed cheque is not disputed by the applicant and therefore, the statutory presumption under section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is activated. The case of the complainant is that the accused is the proprietor of Krishnarpan Agency and purchased electronic goods from the complainant on credit and issued the disputed cheque for Rs.1,00,000/- dated 01.06.2012 towards discharge of the said liability. The defence is that the accused is not connected with the said proprietary concern and that it is in fact the brother of the accused who is the proprietor and who has issued the cheque. This defence is rejected by both the courts below, and for sound reasons. The accused did not claim the statutory notice, did not step into the witness box and did not examine his brother who according to the accused is the proprietor of Krishnarpan Agency.

(3.) Both the courts below have concurrently held that the complainant proved that the cheque was issued towards discharge of existing liability. In exercise of revisional jurisdiction, I am not inclined to minutely evaluate the evidence on record since nothing is brought to my notice to suggest that the findings recorded are perverse. No miscarriage of justice is demonstrated.