Failure to prove discharge of debt can lead to conviction under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. The petitioner has challenged the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court convicting the petitioner for an offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'the N.I. Act').

2. The respondent herein lodged a private complaint accusing the petitioner herein of an offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the N.I. Act. He claimed that the petitioner had borrowed a loan of Rs.3, 50, 000.00 from him and towards repayment of the said loan, the petitioner had issued a cheque dtd. 12/1/2012 for a sum of Rs.3, 50, 000.00 and when the said cheque was presented for encashment, it was dishonoured as the account was closed. After issuing appropriate notice of demand, the respondent filed a complaint accusing the petitioner of an offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the N.I. Act.

3. The case was contested by the petitioner herein. The petitioner claimed that he and the respondent had entered into a partnership to conduct business in mines and minerals and that the said partnership was wound up and the parties had settled the case in terms of which the petitioner was liable to pay a sum of Rs.3, 50, 000.00 and towards the same, he had passed on the cheque in question to the respondent. He claimed that he could not pay the said amount and hence, entered into a settlement, in terms of which, the respondent was permitted to cut and remove silver oak trees that were raised in the land of the father of the petitioner.

4. The Trial Court after considering the contentions, held that the respondent herein had proved that the petitioner herein was liable to pay a sum of Rs.3, 50, 000.00 to him and that the cheque in question was lawfully drawn by the petitioner herein towards discharge of the debt. The Trial Court held that the petitioner herein was unable to prove the contention that the respondent herein had cut and removed timber towards the satisfaction of the cheque amount and hence, convicted the petitioner herein for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the N.I. Act. The appeal in Crl.A. No.50/2017 preferred there against by the petitioner was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the said judgments, this revision petition is filed.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent was permitted to cut and remove timber worth Rs.3, 50, 000.00. However, the respondent attempted to remove timber that was valued at more than Rs.3, 50, 000.00 and therefore, the petitioner had lodged a complaint. He therefore submitted that the defence set up by the petitioner was probable, which the Courts failed to consider.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent claimed that there was nothing on record to establish that the respondent had agreed to cut and remove timber and that this was invented only after the proceedings under Sec. 138 of the N.I. Act were initiated.

7. I have considered the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

8. The petitioner has admitted his liability to pay a sum of Rs.3, 50, 000.00 to the respondent and that he had passed on the cheque for discharge of such liability. The petitioner was unable to demonstrate that the said debt was discharged duly. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court were therefore justified in convicting the petitioner herein for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the N.I. Act. There is no error in the appreciation of evidence by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court or the application of law to the facts and circumstances of the case warranting interference by this Court in proceedings under Sec. 397 of the Cr.P.C.

9. Hence, this petition lacks merit and is dismissed.

Any amount in deposit is permitted to be withdrawn by the respondent.