The dishonour of a cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act constitutes a criminal offence, and the burden of proof lies on the accused to provide a valid defence against the allegations.

JUDGMENT

1. The accused in CC No.548/2017 on the file of the learned XXV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court' for brevity), is impugning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 18/1/2019, convicting him for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act ('NI Act' for short) and sentencing to pay fine of Rs.6, 50, 000.00 and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one year, which was confirmed in Crl.A.No.346/2019 on the file of the learned LXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'the First Appellate Court' for brevity) vide judgment dtd. 12/10/2021.

2. Brief facts of the case are that, the complainant represented by its authorized representative, filed the private complaint in PCR No.15289/2015 against the accused alleging commission of offence punishable under Sec. 138 of NI Act. It is alleged that the complainant- company engaged in the business of supplying fabrication to various industries. Accused No.1 is the proprietary concern and accused No.2 is its proprietor. The complainant was in need of steel plates used as raw materials in manufacturing the fabrication materials and approached the accused for supply of such steel plates. As per the quotation dtd. 23/6/2014, the accused offered to sell the steel plates required by the complainant. The complainant placed order dtd. 28/6/2014 for purchase of salima 4501 material sail make steel plate and on 28/6/2014, the complainant paid an advance amount of Rs.5, 84, 668.00 by transferring the same through RTG's to the account of the accused being 50% of the total consideration amount. But the accused failed to supply the raw materials as agreed. Therefore, the agreement to purchase the steel plates stood cancelled. The accused agreed to refund the amount which was paid as advance. He issued the cheque bearing No.928758 dtd. 15/10/2014, drawn on National Co- operative Bank Limited, Podar Chambers, Store Lane Fort, Mumbai- 400001. When the cheque was presented for encashment, the same was dishonoured as there was insufficient funds. The complainant issued legal notice to accused Nos.1 and 2 informing them regarding dishonour of the cheque and calling upon them to repay the cheque amount. The notice was served on the accused. But inspite of that, the accused had not replied, nor repaid the cheque amount. Thereby, the accused have committed the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of NI Act. Accordingly, the complainant requested the trial Court to take cognizance of the offence and to initiate legal action against the accused.

3. The trial Court took cognizance of the offence and registered CC No.548/2017 against the accused for the above said offence. The accused appeared before the trial Court in response to the summons and pleaded not guilty for the accusation made against him. The complainant examined PW-1 and got marked Exs.P1 to 8 in support of his contention. The accused has not led any evidence in support of his defence, except denying the incriminating materials on record. The trial Court after taking into consideration the materials on records that are placed before it, came to the conclusion that the complainant is successful in proving the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of NI Act and accordingly, passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence as stated above.

4. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused has preferred Crl.A.No.346/2019. The First Appellate Court on re- appreciation of the materials on record, dismissed the appeal by confirming the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court.

5. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused has preferred this revision petition.

6. Heard Sri Dilip Kumar K., learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused and Sri Prashanth B.K., learned counsel for the respondent/complainant. Perused the materials in