In a criminal revision, the High Court upheld convictions of the accused for cheque dishonour under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The Court held that the Courts below correctly drew conclusions from evidence and there were no reasons to interfere.
Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN
PRESENT
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1399 OF 2010
Between:
M. Ramchander Rao
… PETITIONER
And
B. Rama Raju and another
… RESPONDENTS
This Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE (SR) No.23959 OF 2010
ORDER:
1. This revision petition is sought to be filed by the accused against concurrent findings of both the Courts below holding that the petitioner is guilty of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short, the Act). There is no dispute about Ex.P-1 - cheque containing signature of the accused. According to the respondent No.1/complainant, he gave hand loan of
Rs.1,50,000/- to the petitioner on 08.10.2005 and obtained Ex.P-7 - Promissory Note therefor and that the petitioner agreed to repay the said sum with interest at 18% per annum and that the petitioner issued Ex.P-1 - cheque for Rs.1,85,000/- in favour of the respondent No.1 on his bank account towards discharge of the promissory note debt. When presented for encashment, Ex.P-1 - cheque was dishonoured and it is evident from Exs.P-2 and P-3, memos issued by the bank. After issuing Ex.P-4 - Statutory Notice, the respondent No.1 filed private complaint before the Magistrate alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. In Ex.P-8 - reply of the accused, the petitioner contends inter alia that when he left the cheque in his cabin, his colleague, who is relation of the complainant took away the cheque and handed it over to the complainant and that making use of the said lost cheque, the complainant filed the case. The complainant apart from examining himself as PW.1, examined PWs.2 and 3 in support of his lending and the accused giving
Ex.P-1 - cheque in discharge of the promissory note debt. The accused did not choose to examine himself as a witness to rebut the presumption contained under Section 139 of the Act with regard to Ex.P-1 - cheque being supported by legally enforceable debt. Both the Courts below disbelieved version of the accused rightly and came to the conclusion that Ex.P-1 - cheque is supported by legally enforceable debt and that the complainant has made out the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. I do not find any reasons to come to a different conclusion in this revision petition.
2. Hence, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.
___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J
July 27, 2010 MD
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1399 OF 2010
July 27, 2010
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is guilty of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for issuing a dishonoured cheque.
Whether the accused's failure to examine himself as a witness to rebut the presumption under Section 139 is fatal to his defence.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
M. Ramchander Rao
B. Rama Raju
SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
