The court ruled that mere allegations of coercion cannot rebut the statutory presumption of liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act, as the complainant fulfilled all legal requirements for action under Section 138.

ORDER :

1. Accused-Revision Petitioners have preferred these Criminal Revision Petitions against the Judgment of conviction and Order on sentence dated 04^th October, 2012 passed in CC No.11346 of 2008 and 19238 of 2009 by the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru (for short hereinafter referred to as “the trial Court”) which is confirmed by judgment dated 28^th November, 2018 in Criminal Appeals No.672 and 673 of 2012 by the LV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge Bengaluru (CCH-56) (for short hereinafter referred to as “the appellate Court”).

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per rank before the trial Court.

3. Facts in brief are that the complainant filed complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act as to dishonour of cheques issued by the accused. It is stated that accused No.1 is the company viz. M/s. PAM Networks Limited and accused No.2 is its Managing Director and is also the authorised signatory of accusedNo.1-Company. The complainant was working in accused No.1 Company and in the year 2001, she left the said Company. Accused 2 and 3 are looking after the affairs of accused No.1-Company and they issued cheque bearing No.120106 dated 10^th July 2007 for Rs.15,000/- pertaining to CC No.11346 of 2008 and another cheque bearing No.120108 dated 10.07.2007 for Rs.15,000/- pertaining to CC No.19238 of 2009 both drawn on UTI Bank Limited, MG Road branch, Bengaluru, and also assured the complainant that the cheques would be honoured on its presentation. Accordingly, complainant presented the said cheques through Canara Bank, Vidyaranyapura Branch, Bengaluru which were returned unpaid with an endorsement “drawer stopped the payment”. Consequently, on 17^th July 2007, the complainant got issued legal notice to the accused. After service of notice, accused replied to the legal notice. However, accused did not make good the payment towards the cheques within the stipulated time. It is stated that the accused issued the above cheques towards discharge of legally enforceable debt. Thus accused committed offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. After taking cognizance, the trial Court issued process against the accused. Accused appeared before the trial Court through Counsel and released on bail. The substance of accusation was read over and explained to the accused. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To prove the case of the complainant in both cases, complainant-Smt. Charulatha Desai got examined as PW1 and marked fifteen documents as Exhibits P1 to P15 in CC No.11346 of 2008 and 56 documents as per Exhibits P1 to P56 in CC No.19238 of 2009. Upon closure of complainant side evidence, statement of the accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. Accused have totally denied the evidence of PW1 in both cases and has adduced the evidence of one Sri P.M. Prabhu as DW1 and got marked one document i.e. Letter to the complainant, as Exhibit D1.

4. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the trial Court convicted the accused and under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act in both the cases and sentenced accused 1 to 3 to pay a fine of Rs.40,000/- and in default of payment of fine, accused 1 to 3 shall undergo simple presentment for a period of six months. It is further ordered that out of the said fine amount, Rs.30,000/- shall be paid to the complainant as compensation as provided under Section 357 of Code of Criminal Procedure and Rs.10,000/- shall be remitted to the State as fine in CC No.11346 of 2008 and similar order was also passed in CC No.19238 of 2009. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on