TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 428X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut he does not know his name and his residential address. That supports the contention of the complainant that to relieve his relative from the car loan liability and he intervened and paid the car loan and that they were two distinct transactions. The trial Court held that car loan transaction and the loan transaction under Ex.P1 were two distinct transactions and the accused failed to rebut the presumption available to the complainant under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Thus, the trial Court on the sound appreciation of the evidence and the law rightly rejected the defence of the accused, convicted and sentenced him and that was upheld by the First Appellate Court - revision petition is dismissed. - CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No. 237/2017 - - - Dated:- 4-11-2020 - THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K. S.MUDAGAL FOR THE PETITIONER : BY SRI MADHVACHAR M., ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT : BY SRI D.P.MAHESH, ADVOCATE ORDER Whether the impugned order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and confirmed by the First Appellate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ikeri in P.C.No.151/2010 to prosecute the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and registered the case in C.C.No.1393/2012 and summoned the accused. On appearance, the accused denied the substance of accusation and claimed trial. Therefore, trial was conducted. 8. In support of his case, the complainant got himself examined as PW.1 and two witnesses as PWs.2 and 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6. The accused after his examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., got himself examined as DW.1 and two witnesses as DWs.2 and 3. He got marked Exs.D1 to 25. 9. The Trial Court on hearing the parties, by the impugned judgment and order dated 20.06.2015 in C.C.No.1393/2012 convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to simple imprisonment of six months and fine of ₹ 5,000/- and in default to pay fine to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. Further, the Trial Court awarded compensation of ₹ 2,50,000/- to the complainant. 10. The Trial Court recorded the order of conviction and sentence on the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of his contention he relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Basalingappa vs. Mudibasappa (2019) 5 SCC 418. 13. Per contra, Sri.D.P.Mahesh, learned counsel for the respondent seeks to justify the impugned orders of the Courts below on the ground that the accused himself has admitted in his cross-examination that the loan relating to the car and the loan under the cheque - Ex.P1 were two distinct transactions. He further submits that when the accused admitted his signature on the cheque and that the cheque belongs to his account, the complainant had the benefit of the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He further submits that the accused has failed to rebut the said presumption, therefore, both the Courts rightly convicted and sentenced him. 14. This being the revision petition under Section 397 of Cr.P.C., against the concurrent findings of the trial Court and the First Appellate Court, the scope of interference in the matter is very limited. Unless it is shown that the impugned orders suffer perversity, glaring illegality, impropriety or incorrectness, this Court in the revisional jurisdiction cannot interfere with the matt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in his cross-examination admits that there was financial transaction between him and the complainant and he has not cleared the loan lent by the complainant. He further admitted that he purchased the car availing the loan from the Bank and the Bank has filed the suit against him for recovery of the said loan amount. Though he claims that he cleared the Bank loan under Exs.D2 to 24 - receipts, he admits that the total sum covered in Exs.D2 to 24 only ₹ 13,000/-, whereas the loan amount was ₹ 2,20,000/-. 21. Accused/DW.1 admitted that he has no document to show that he has paid the loan of ₹ 2,00,000/- to the Bank. When it was suggested to him that the remaining loan amount except the said sum of ₹ 13,000/- paid by the complainant, he state that the complainant paid part of the loan amount. 22. In his cross examination, DW.1 tried to introduce a story that complainant was due to pay him ₹ 1,80,000/- towards chit transaction and out of that only ₹ 40,000/- he paid to the Bank. He admits that complainant was not running any chit transaction, but states that his younger brother Poovaiah was running a chit transaction. 23. DW.1 admits that he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
