2022 (3) TMI 911 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - house was purchased and only part of consideration was paid - applicability of section 138 of NI Act or not - HELD THAT - On going through the provision of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act it is clear that petitioner was owing debt liability towards respondent because he has not paid full consideration of the purchased house to the respondent. He paid part consideration by way of cheque No. 467136 amounting to Rs. 2, 90, 000/-. The Apex Court in the case of Duli Chand Vs. Delhi Administration 1975 (8) TMI 150 - SUPREME COURT has held that the jurisdiction of the High Court in a criminal revision application is severely restricted and it cannot embark upon a re appreciation of the evidence. This Court is of the view that Court below have not committed any illegality - revision dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Criminal Revision against conviction and sentence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

Analysis:
- The petitioner filed a Criminal Revision aggrieved by the judgment passed by the 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior, confirming the conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
- The case involved the petitioner purchasing a portion of the respondent's ancestral house, issuing a cheque for part of the consideration, which was dishonored, leading to a complaint under Section 138 of the Act.
- The trial court found the petitioner guilty, sentenced him to six months, and ordered payment of the due amount. The appellate court partly allowed the appeal, directing the petitioner to deposit the amount within 30 days to avoid imprisonment.
- The petitioner deposited the compensation but challenged the conviction, arguing that the facts did not constitute an offense under Section 138.
- The court noted that the petitioner did not dispute purchasing the house or issuing the dishonored cheque, establishing a debt liability towards the respondent.
- Referring to the provisions of Section 138, the court emphasized the legal obligation arising from the unpaid consideration amount, aligning with precedents restricting the High Court's revision jurisdiction in criminal matters.
- Citing relevant case law, the court upheld the lower courts' decisions, finding no illegality in their judgments and consequently dismissing the revision.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the legal intricacies involved in the Criminal Revision against the conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, emphasizing the court's adherence to legal provisions and precedents in reaching its decision to dismiss the revision.