The issuance of a cheque constitutes acknowledgment of liability; presumption of enforceability exists unless rebutted with credible evidence, reaffirming the validity of debts in commercial transactions.

ORDER :

H.P. Sandesh, J.

Crl.R.P.No.266/2022 is filed by the accused challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 01.07.2015 passed in C.C.No.15680/2010 and judgment of confirmation dated 23.10.2019 passed in Crl.A.No.1000/2015.

2. Crl.P.No.7694/2022 is filed by the accused challenging the order dated 23.10.2019 passed in Crl.R.P.No.600/2015 allowing the revision petition and enhancing the fine amount to Rs.24 lakhs.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the complainant before the Trial Court invoking Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (‘NI Act’ for short) is that the complainant is a Public Limited Company engaged in manufacturing, marketing and selling of Prestige Range of kitchen utensils. The accused No.1 is the proprietorship concern represented by its proprietor accused No.2. The accused was appointed as authorized dealer and the complainant has supplied their Prestige range of products as per the purchase orders placed by the accused and the accused was liable to pay the value of the goods supplied for them. Towards the said payment, the accused issued a cheque bearing No.649099 dated 19.12.2009 drawn on ICICI Bank Ltd., Malleshwaram Branch, Bangalore, for a sum of Rs.15,32,008/- and it came to be dishonoured on its presentation for encashment as “funds insufficient”. The same was intimated to the accused through the legal notice by demanding for the payment of cheque amount. The accused by giving vague reply failed to pay the cheque amount and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act. Hence, the complainant filed a private complaint and sworn statement of the complainant was recorded and cognizance was taken and summons was issued against the accused. The summons was duly served on the accused and she failed to appear before the Court and hence NBW was issued and she was secured before the Court and thereafter enlarged on bail. The plea was recorded and in the plea she did not accept the claim and claimed to be tried and hence and complainant examined its authorized representative as P.W.1 and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 23. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and she denied the incriminating evidence that she has got defence and examined herself as D.W.1 and also examined one witness as D.W.2 and got marked the documents at Exs.D.1 to 3. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, answered the points for consideration in the affirmative and convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.15,42,008/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of ten months.

4. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction, the accused filed Crl.A.No.1000/2015. The Appellate Court dismissed the said appeal and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court.

5. The complainant also filed Crl.R.P.No.600/2015 before the Revisional Court challenging the sentence contending that the sentence imposed by the Trial Court is meager and it requires enhancement. The complainant’s revision petition was allowed and ordered accused Nos.1 and 2 to pay fine of Rs.24 lakhs and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of ten months and the judgment of the Trial Court was modified enhancing the fine amount.

6. Being aggrieved by both the orders, the accused has preferred the