cR1..R.1:>. ORDER """ "" The petitioner has challengeeri the j17;e1gment'€in$:§3I:ii<?:I" 'V conviction for the offence punishabie umiei" ;_a~f ' Negotiaiaie instruments Act and rm :§_eI1terVice'&iii"ecti1i':;gV&:E1:i§ ;§a;=fY a fine of Rs.25,000[-, in defauit to eiizqiergp ifmfiyisonment for six months. V A A L 2. The facts xeievgni yerfijaeevofz revision are as ufiéer: The Vefivhemas the respondent
herein is “filed -‘the complaint under Section
338 of elleging that on 10.1 1.2001, the
aecused “1Z4}~.§)’31’V1TkZ)’i.3\?'{‘:(1″V1(V3£a.;t_;.’l V(V’_’$2f 1T3,090/– and has assured to repay
the repayment of the said loan, he
issfiezf{we pe9$’%.ve1eied–:”cheques on 10.132001 drawn on Mysore
T’ 2 Cefipexafive Bank and when the accused did next
” jzhe ieani,’ the cheques were presented by the complainant
‘i;'<1£:3r_\&f«ere I'6t1}.I"H€d unpaid with an endorsement of insufiicient
Immediately, thereafter the complainant issued a notice to
f.he.Vaccused and though the notice was served, the accused did not
S repay the same or reply the nofiee. In the circumstances, the
complainant approached the Trial Court for taking actiern against
%ie
CRL.R'p.No.:3Q§§_}':2{:;o7
the accused for the offence punishable under
Negotiable Instnnznents Act.
3. In pursuance of the summens ‘issued, ‘the
appeared before the tria} court _:3p1ea,. ~
complainant examineé himself as and evidence got
marked documents Exs.P.1 , of the accused
was ieeozded underv 13 :'(‘i1{ to the afidavit
and got as is examined as
Dw.2 and the eocummts Exs.D.1
to D.4.
4. The 1:rial”courtp’V:1 Aa;§f)i*eeiafion of the materials on me-:)n:l,
‘under Section 138 of Negotiable
ieeiruniente’Ae£;’afid—.ordered to pay fine of Rs.25,00()/- and to
e.._J1;nderg’0. Si1m1§1e’.V-ijgafiixveisenment for six months and from the said
xto pay Rs.24,()OG/– to the complainant under
.1 RC. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the
epproached the Sessions Court in Criminal appeal
‘ 2006 and the sale” appeai came to be dismissed on merits.
“q_ *Aé§ieved by the said orders, the petitioner has ayproached this
Court in zevision.
[V = _ “eJ:1eques ‘w.ere.__’is.2111ee}. by the accused relating to the said business,
‘ac;c11see1’v…e~ught to have replied the notice Ex.P.5. N0
“Ve;ipi1a.11a:§0_1§ has been ofiered by the accused regarding the new
“e.V:’ep’£3{?VQf the notice.
cRL.R.p.Na.3Qe_/290?
uotice issued. Pmthermore, he eubxxxits that thoug_}1.__”i.§1e;{;§’~Va.
coxlcurrent findings by the courts below and un}eae”i1*1e K
order is: illegal and perverse, this in
appreciate the material on record: €31} he
for dismissal of the pefition.
8. The complainant and his evidence
zeveais about the E9311 pf request by the
accused for payzygeegt and he further
states that 10.11.2001 and the two
cheques “v:é::s;6,’500/~ each were given. He
further stat;es teat of the cheques they were
returned endo1jee1nefi;t of insumcient funds and thereafter,
liiew :”j1’1:)_tice Ex.P.5 by Registered post. In the
cimz1’m.s’aa11ees;’V there was a busiaess transaction and these
9. 9W.1 in his eviéenee states that the cheques issued were
not towards payment of any debt, but were in respect of the
payment towards the purchase of raw silk from the complainant
>41
cRL.R.P.No.3oe_j2Qe7
He has produced the statement of acceunts of the
Bank wherein them is reference of the chequee ‘ie.suef_e’I- £0 mg
complainant were eneashed. DW.2 av”; H3dzis’i11e3e -:E:”ieiid_
accused present While issuing cheques stiggpoxfts thefeeieion ref’
accused, having given four cheques;–ve_f6r. the silk ‘biufasixievseddis with V
regard to the purchase of vcd;:Lii:11VVe_:’aveis._.’:et12’i’:1ed ‘es it was
defective. But he admits in that they have
get the documents ‘efdefective silk. These
documents are fidtforth by the accused
in the of evidence cf Dive. 1
and 2 has : been by Way of repiy to notice at
Ex.P.5. Furyhereiete; flee. of the eroswexamination of PWK1
eheqdee ‘iS3’ii€d at Exs.P. 1 and 9.2 do get relate to
the”e:1:éinessv..<:fi:§is;s{ae1:ion of silk between the complainant and
e,..A__VVaeeused. dijn E;x.S.2 and Exs.D.2a and 11213 refers to a
tefaeeaetiee cf Aehedeomplainant and payment of cash. If really, any
ehecguee were issued by the accused pertaining to the
_;3_z1éiz1e;§s' eetxrcreen the eoreapiainant and accused, the accused
Wedidddhave secured the presence of bank offieiais regardizrxg to
the payment in cash in pursuance of the cheques. Apart
from this, it is relevant to note that the dates of the cheques have
met been disclosed in the document produced in 3325.2. A
cs2L.R.P.Nc–;:si0*$f;':2§3QQ?
30. It is we}! established prixzciple ef law
cheque is presented and is rammed by; thg: ‘_i3’2i§’ufl3cic:;’itii ”
fumis, a presumption arises under Sgctionji’
Instruments Act and it is for t1i8’«.,_accfiss_:ci’ to
pmsumption. So, taking into consiiiieiaiign of fact
arrived at by the Couxts vclisiiifin of PWK1
that the cheques do’ :1c} t i.iE)Vii;:§Li:1ésvVs.iVi;i§§,:i?.action, I do not
find that the pe:ifi;§né§;:.\:i; .-as vgrgnunds to assai} the
findings as megs: in” 2 V
1 3.. counsel for the petitioner
submitted? thvat aivatd}. fé’i’ii:;ia:i; the transaction is of the year 2001 ané 8
Iiavé’ii3eefi’é3;§.f§..i$ed since from the date of transaction and the
_iii..;ts;)c:1deIi1; ‘«:§iIifiit§€d to interest on the amount. Further, the
; ‘is’:.1fi3mVits that the amount of Rs.15,GOO/– was deposited
back and Rs.1{),OO{}[~ since two years. The
V. ‘ msfiifident has not Withdrawn the amount and did not submit any
..i”i,.4iii”af.§4;i1icatio::t for withcimwai, Hence, he submits that it would be
just and proper ta reduce the amount: of fine,