Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2021 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (11) TMI 448 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - legally recoverable debt between the complainant and the accused or not - misuse of cheque - rebuttal of presumption - brevity of contract or not - all the incriminatory circumstances denied - Section 138 of NI Act - quantum of sentences ordered - HELD THAT:- In the case on hand, the issuance of cheque and the signature found on the cheque is not in dispute. According to the accused, the said cheque was issued as a security to Venugopal, who is examined as P.W. 2 in the case. In his cross-examination, there is not even a suggestion that the cheque which was issued to Venugopal has been misused by him by illegally handing it over to the complainant - Irfan Chougley and therefore, there was no legally recoverable debt between the complainant and the accused. There is no action taken by the accused against the complainant or Venugopal Reddy for the alleged misuse of the cheque. The legal notice was replied on 03.07.2003. No prudent person would keep quiet if the cheque has been misused by the complainant even after approaching the lawyer and got a reply. Further, even after conducting the evidence, the accused has not explained in his written statement filed under Section 313(5) of Cr.P.C., as to how the signature found in Ex. P2 is not his signature. So also, the signature found in Ex. P1 is also not in dispute. All these aspects of the matter has been properly considered by the learned Magistrate and recorded a categorical finding that cheque was issued for the legally recoverable debt and therefore, which on dishonour and the amount covered in the cheque being not paid, the accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. In the case on hand, the accused did not even step into the witness box. Under such circumstances, in view of the material evidence available on record, coupled with the statutory presumption, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no legal infirmity or capriciousness or perversity in recording the findings by the learned Magistrate that the accused is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act which has been rightly appreciated by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court - Admittedly, the cheque amount is ₹ 4,50,000/- and the learned Magistrate has fined the accused in a sum of ₹ 4,55,000/-. Out of which, ₹ 4,50,000/- was ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant. Under the circumstance, the complainant for the reasons best known to him has not challenged the order passed by the learned Magistrate seeking enhancement of the fine amount. Under such circumstances, there is no case made out by the accused to reduce the sentence. Revision dismissed.
|