Point of Law: Under the shadow of Section 138 of the NI Act, parties are encouraged to settle the dispute resulting in ultimate closure of the case rather than continuing with a protracted litigation before the court.

JUDGMENT :

through virtual mode

No representation from the side of the petitioner.

2. Seen the report, dated 25.01.2022 submitted by the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, in charge in Special Judicial Magistrate of I class for Prohibition and Excise, Guntur, on the record filed in compliance of order, dated 16.12.2021. The order of this court, dated 16.12.2021 has been complied. The petitioner was arrested and was released on bail by the court below.

3. With the assistance of Sri S.Venkata Sainath, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor, the Court proceeds to decide the matter finally.

4. Perused the material on record.

5. The facts of the case are that the respondent No.1 filed complaint against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments (N.I.) Act, on the averments inter alia that the petitioner/accused borrowed Rs.25,000/- from the complainant on 23.06.2003 and executed a promissory note in favour of the complainant. The petitioner issued a cheque bearing No.561000, dated 30.11.2003, for Rs.25,000/- drawn on Chaitanya Grameena Bank, Guntur, in favour of the complainant, towards discharge of the above said debt amount, which, on presentation in the bank was dishonoured due to “funds insufficient”. The complainant issued a registered statutory notice to the accused on 31.12.2003, which was received by the accused, but inspite thereof the payment was not made.

6. The C.C.No.174/2004, registered on the complaint, was taken on the file of VII Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur under Section 138 of N.I. Act. On appearance of the accused, the copies of the documents were supplied as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C and the accused on examination under Section 251 Cr.P.C, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. During charge in support of the complaint, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.5 were got marked. After closure of the evidence, the accused being examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the incriminating evidence and examined himself as DW.1, but no documents were marked on his behalf.

8. The VII Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur vide judgment, dated 16.08.2004 convicted the petitioner/accused for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a period of six (06) months and imposed fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.

9. The Crl.A.No.342 of 2004 filed by the petitioner was dismissed vide judgment, dated 19.01.2006, confirming the judgment, dated 16.08.2004 passed by the VII Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur in C.C.No.174 of 2004.

10. Challenging the appellate judgment, the revision has been filed.

11. The VII Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur in its judgment has categorically recorded findings that the petitioner issued cheque, Ex.P1 in discharge of the debt/liability under promissory note, Ex.P.2 which on presentation in the bank was dishonoured due to “funds insufficient” for which the Bank issued memo, Ex.P3. The complainant thereafter issued a registered statutory notice, Ex.P4 which was served on the petitioner, but the amount was not paid. The learned Trail Court held that the evidence of P.W.1 was corroborated with the evidence of the witnesses and the documentary evidence and as such the complainant proved the guilt of the accused. These findings have been recorded on consideration of the evidence on record oral and documentary. These findings have been affirmed by the learned lower Appellate Court, which also appreciated the evidence on record.

12. The burden of proof, to prove the guilt of the accused is on the complainant, which was discharged satisfactorily. The prerequisites for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act have been proved. The presumption has not been rebutted by the accused/petitioner. The concurrent findings are of fact and the Court does not find those findings suffering from any illegality or perversity so as to call for any interfe