The main legal point established is that the issuance of a dishonored cheque for discharging a debt can lead to conviction under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the defense's argument of the cheque being obtained forcibly must be supported by strong evidence to be considered.

JUDGMENT

1. This revision petition under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 of Cr.P.C., is filed by the accused in C.C.No.19887/2009 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, who has suffered judgment of conviction in relation to offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ('N.I.Act' for short). Learned Magistrate imposed a fine of Rs.9,55,000.00 with default sentence of six months simple imprisonment on the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner preferred an appeal, Crl.A.No.565/2012, in the Court of the LX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-61) and he lost his appeal also. Therefore this revision petition.

2. I have heard the arguments of Smt. Sohani Holla, learned Amicus Curiae for the petitioner and Sri S.N.Bhat, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The respondent is a Credit Co-operative Society. The case of the respondent is that on 3/6/2004, the petitioner availed financial assistance of Rs.5,00,000.00 and agreed to repay the same with interest in installments. As he failed to repay the loan amount, the respondent initiated arbitration proceeding before the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies passed an award against the petitioner. Therefore the respondent took out execution for recovery of the award amount and in that course, the petitioner is said to have issued post dated cheque bearing No.126850 dtd. 25/3/2009 for Rs.6,50,000.00. The said cheque came to be dishonoured for insufficiency of funds in the bank account of the petitioner. Therefore the respondent initiated action under the provisions of Negotiable Instruments Act.

4. Learned Magistrate, after appreciating evidence, came to conclusion that the petitioner issued the cheque for discharging his debt and since it was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds in his bank account, he could be convicted for the said offence. The appellate Court also confirmed the judgment of the trial Court.

5. Smt. Sohani Holla, learned Amicus Curiae for the petitioner refers to Ex.P.14, to argue that the cheque marked as per Ex.P.1 was obtained from the petitioner forcibly by the officers of the respondent-Society. She submits that Ex.P.14 is the notice issued by the petitioner to the Secretary of the respondent-society alleging that the cheque was obtained from the petitioner by putting threat and therefore the petitioner requested the respondent to return the cheque. It is her argument that if the cheque was obtained from the petitioner in these circumstances, the trial Court ought not to have held that the petitioner voluntarily issued the cheque for discharging his legally enforceable debt. The petitioner should have been acquitted of the offence under Sec. 138 of N.I.Act. Even the appellate Court has not noticed Ex.P.14. In view of this legal infirmity in the judgment of the trial Court as also the appellate Court, the petitioner is entitled to be acquitted.

6. Sri S.N.Bhat, learned counsel for the respondent refutes the argument of the learned Amicus Curiae and submits that the petitioner issued the cheque voluntarily and this is forthcoming in Ex.P.10. The trial Court has carefully referred to Ex.P.10 to come to conclusion that Ex.P.14 cannot be considered for doubting the case of the respondent. In Ex.P.10, it is clearly written that the petitioner himself issued the cheque for Rs.6,50,000.00 when the execution was taken out against him pursuant to the award passed by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Therefore it is not as though the trial Court and the appellate Court have doubted the case of the respondent. In this view, there is no merit in this revision petition.

7. Since this is the only point urged now, if Ex.P.10 and P.14 are considered, what appears is that although the petitioner issued a notice to the Secretary of the respondent-Society on 24/3/2009 stating that the representatives of the Society obtained the cheque from hi