IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1331 of 2010()
1. VINCENT, AGED 42 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. S.SAHADEVAN, PROPRIETOR,
For Petitioner :SRI.GEORGE MATHEW
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN
Dated :19/05/2010
O R D E R
V.K.MOHANAN, J.
----------------------------------------
Crl. R.P. No. 1331 of 2010
----------------------------------------
Dated 19th Day of May, 2010
ORDER
Challenging the concurrent finding of the trial court
as well as the lower appellate court, the accused, in a
prosecution for the offence punishable under section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, preferred this
Crl. Revision Petition.
2. The allegation against the revision petitioner is
that he issued a cheque dated 9.8.2006 drawn on the
Nellimoodu Service Co-operative Bank for Rs.2,48,372/-
towards the discharge of a debt and when the cheque
presented for encashment, it was dishonoured as there
was no sufficient fund in the account maintained by the
revision petitioner. Hence, the complainant approached
the trial court by filing a proper complaint and during the
trial, the complainant himself was examined as PW1 and
adduced oral evidence and also produced Exts.P1 to P5
documents to substantiate his case. From the side of the
Crl.R.P. No.1331/10
-:2:-
accused, DWs 1 to 3 were examined and produced Exts.D1
and D1(a). The trial court, after appreciating the
evidence on record, has found that there was frequent
transaction between the complainant and the accused in
connection with the supply of green gram and the specific
case taken by the accused is that the complainant
supplied low quality green gram. It is also admitted by
the accused that he had issued three signed blank
cheques to the complainant. With the available
materials, the trial court found that though the
complainant has established his case by producing cogent
and satisfactory evidence and as the transaction is
admitted by the accused, it is for the accused to discharge
his burden and to rebut the presumption available to the
complainant under section 139 of the Act. Thus, relying
upon the decision of the Apex Court in Hiten P.Dalal v.
Brathindrnath Banerjee (2001(6) SCC 16), the trial
court has held that the complainant has succeeded in his
case and accordingly, the accused is found guilty. Though
Crl.R.P. No.1331/10
-:3:-
Crl.Appeal 375/2008 was filed by the accused, the lower
appellate court confirmed the conviction recorded by the
trial court and accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision
petitioner-accused submitted that the accused had already
discharged the debt due to the complainant and Ext.P1
cheque was issued, not connected with the transaction
as claimed by the complainant, but it was issued during
the year 2006 connected with another transaction.
4. It is seen from the judgments of the courts
below that there was frequent transaction between the
revision petitioner and the complainant and the main
ground taken by the accused is to the effect that green
gram supplied by the complainant was low quality and it
was returned to the complainant himself. When the
transaction between the complainant and revision
petitioner is admitted, especially, the drawing, execution
and issuance of the cheque, it is heavily upon the revision
petitioner to clearly establish his defence. Thus, though
Crl.R.P. No.1331/10
-:4:-
the revision petitioner/accused disputed the transaction
claimed by the complainant, no acceptable and
satisfactory evidence was adduced to substantiate the case
of the revision petitioner and thus, the revision petitioner
miserably failed to discharge the burden of rebutting the
presumption available in favour of the complainant under
section 139 of the Act. Therefore, I find no reason to
interfere with the concurrent finding of the courts below in
exercise of the revisional Jurisdiction of this Court.
Accordingly, this Crl.R.P is dismissed as there is no merit.
V.K.MOHANAN,
JUDGE
kvm/-
Crl.R.P. No.1331/10
-:5:-
V.K.MOHANAN, J.
O.P.No.
JUDGMENT
Dated:..
