The presumption of liability under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act applies when a cheque's signature is admitted, unless expressly rebutted.

ORDER :

(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR, J.)

This Criminal Revision Petition is directed against the judgment dated 13.05.2016 passed in Crl.A.No.752/2012 by the LII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru wherein conviction of the petitioner by judgment dated 22.10.2012 passed in C.C.No.2479/2008 by the XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as “N.I Act for brevity) has been affirmed.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent is absent.

3. The case of the respondent –complainant before the trial Court was that the complainant is dealer in tissue paper and paper products under the name and style as M/s S.R Agency. The accused is businessman and Proprietor of M/s Kleanwell Paper Products and Managing Director of accused No.1 –Company. The accused purchased the paper products from the complainant worth Rs.2,48,956/- (rupees Two Lakhs Forty Eight Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty Six only) under the Invoice No.126 dated 28.02.2007 on credit basis. As per request of the accused, invoice was raised in the name of accused proprietorship firm and accused No.2 has issued cheque for Rs.2,48,956/- (rupees Two Lakhs Forty Eight Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty Six only) dated 16.03.2007 to pay invoice amount. The complainant presented the said cheque and it came to be dishonoured for a reason “funds insufficient”. The complainant got issued statutory demand notice to the accused. Accused has sent reply dated 16.06.2007 acknowledging the liability and also receipt of notice. As accused has not paid the cheque amount, the respondent –complainant has initiated proceedings against the petitioner –complainant for offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I Act.

4. The complainant has been examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked documents as Ex.P1 to P13. The statement of the accused has been recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused has examined himself as D.W.1 and not produced any documents. The trial Court after hearing arguments on both side and appreciating evidence on record has convicted the petitioner –accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I Act. The said judgment of conviction has been challenged by the petitioner before the Sessions Court in Crl.A.No.752/2012. The appeal came to be dismissed on merits and confirmed the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that Ex.P3 -Tax Invoice is drawn on M/s Kleanwell Paper Products and it is dated 28.02.2007 for Rs.2,48,956/- (rupees Two Lakhs Forty Eight Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty Six only). Cheque –Ex.P4 is not issued by the M/s Kleanwell Paper Products. He further submits that there was financial transaction between accused No.2 and father of the respondent –complainant and cheque – Ex.P4 has been issued as security for the transaction. He further submits that the petitioner –accused denied supply of materials to M/s Vignesh Industrial Services Pvt. Ltd., or M/s Kleanwell Paper Products. He further submits that Ex.P12 stated to be letter dated 06.09.2007 issued by the petitioner –accused is created one. He further submits that notice has not been served on the petitioner – accused. Without considering all these aspects, the trial Court has erred in convicting the petitioner –accused and learned Sessions Judge failed to re-appreciate evidence on record and affirmed the conviction passed by the trial Court.

6. Having heard learned counsels, this Court has perused impugned judgments and trial Court records.

7. It is case of the respondent