IMPORTANT POINT
No reappreciation of evidence in revision permissible.

A.R. Ramalingam, J.—This revision has been filed by the petitioner/accused viz., one Devaraj against the Judgment given by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari in C.A.No.35 of 2002 whereby he has confirmed the Judgment and sentence given by Judicial Magistrate I, Kuzhithurai in C.C.No. 127 of 1998.

2. The case of prosecution before the Trial Magistrate is to the effect that on 25.11.1997 the petitioner/accused received loan of Rs. 1.00.000/- from the respondent/complainant and in discharge of the loan, the petitioner/accused gave a cheque with the instruction that the cheque can be encashed after two months and that the cheque was dishnoured when it was produced into the bank for payment for the reason that there was no sufficient funds for honouring the cheque and that inspite of the notice through Advocate given by the complainant/respondent, the petitioner/ accused gave reply with false allegations without paying the amount. After trial and considering the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and Exts. to P-1 to P-5 for the prosecution, the Trial Magistrate came to the conclusion that the petitioner/accused has committed offence under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and consequently convicted him to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5.000/-.

3. Aggrieved against the Judgment and conviction, the petitioner accused preferred appeal before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nagercoil, in C.A.No.35 of 2002. However, the Additional District and Sessions Judge also, after considering the evidence for prosecution and Judgment of the Trial Magistrate, came to the conclusion that the petitioner/accused has committed the offence and thereby confirmed the Judgment and sentence of the Trial Court.

4. I have gone through the entire evidence for the prosecution in the light of the Judgments of both the courts below and the arguments of the petitioner’s counsel as well as the respondent’s counsel. Inasmuch as there is no question of re-appreciation of evidence in the revision as contemplated within the meaning of Sections 397 and 401, Crl. P.C, this Court has to see \whether there is any illegality or irregularity or perversity in appreciation of evidence or giving finding and sentence, etc. The fact remains that the petitioner accused gave the cheque to the complainant/respondent. But, his explanation is that it was given in blank and also as a security for the payment of chit amount received by him. At the same time, there is no evidence from the petitioner-accused to show that there was some chit trans- action between the parties and only in that transaction, the cheque was \given as a security for re-payment of the chit amount nor there is evidence for the accused to say that it was given in blank form, but signed. So when there is no acceptable and satisfactory evidence to probabilise the defence of the accused, there is no question of saying that the cheque was not issued to discharge the loan amount. Further, the fact remains that the cheque was dishonoured for the reason that there was no sufficient funds in the bank account of the petitioner/accused. It is very easy for anybody like the petitioner/ accused herein to say as if the cheque was issued in blank and also as a security for some other transaction without any supporting piece of acceptable evidence. If the version of the petitioner/ accused is accepted, then, it would be easy for anybody to take such a defence and there will be no case for invoking Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

5. Therefore, in such circumstances, I am of the view that there is no illegality or irregularity or perversity in appreciation of evidence or in giving finding by the Courts below in a way to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of this Court for setting aside the Judgment of the appellate Court. Accordingly, this revision fails and the same is dismissed. The Trial Court is directed to secure the