ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Amicus Curie for the respondent.

2. The factual matrix of the case of the complainant before the Trial Court in C.C.No.50960/2014 is that the accused availed a loan for construction of his house from the complainant for Rs.4 lakhs and issued a Cheque dated 27.07.2013 and when the same was presented, it was dishonored with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. Hence, legal notice was issued. Inspite of service of notice, the accused has not paid the Cheque amount. Hence, she has initiated the proceedings for the offence punishable under Sections 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (‘the NI Act’

for short).

3. The Trial Court has taken cognizance and thereafter secured the accused and in order to prove the charges leveled against the accused, the complainant examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked the document as Exs.P1 to P8. On the other hand, the accused has not led any evidence and only the document of lease agreement which is marked as Ex.D1 was confronted.

4. The Trial Court, having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, has convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence, an appeal is filed in Crl.A.No.25019/2016. The First Appellate Court, on re-appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, comes to the conclusion that complainant has succeeded in proving the issuance of Cheque at Ex.P1 which was issued for legally enforceable debt. On the other hand, the accused has not made out his case as set out and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. Hence, the present revision petition is filed before this Court.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that both the Courts failed to consider the admission available on record. Learned counsel also would vehemently contend that the judgment of both the Courts are perverse and contrary to the admissions elicited from the mouth of P.W.1. The P.W.1 specifically admitted that she has not made any transaction with this revision petitioner and it was only with the mother. Learned counsel also would submit that the very complainant has filed the case against the mother of the accused and she had filed a criminal revision petition No.849/2018 and this Court, allowed the revision petition and set aside the judgment and conviction. Learned counsel also would vehemently contend that the very admission on the part of the complainant is that she has not disclosed the very fact that she was the tenant under the mother of this accused which is also admitted and she also also admitted in the cross- examination that she only put the date in the said Cheque and contend that she has availed loan from different persons to make payment, but none of the persons have been examined before the Trial Court. The P.W.1 also categorically admitted in the cross-examination with regard to vacating of premises and the matter has reached to Ramamurthynagar Police Station and she has given the complaint and vacated the house after collecting the advance amount which she had paid to the mother of the accused. P.W.1 also categorically admitted that in Ex.P12 which is marked in C.C.No.50961/2014, there is a reference for having made the payment of Rs.1,50,000/- for the construction of the building and earlier though she denied the same, she categorically admitted that she gave money and out of that money, building was constructed and all these admissions on the part of P.W.1 have not been considered. Learned counsel would vehemently contend that when the very transaction is doubtful, there is no need to examine the accused when the answer elicited from the mouth of P.W.1 is clear that there was no transaction between the petitioner and the complainant. Hence, it requires interference.

6. Per contra, the Amicus Curie for the respondent would vehemently contend that specific averments are