Court upheld the conviction under Section 138 for cheque dishonour, denying the accused's unsubstantiated defence of theft while affirming the transaction backed by documentary evidence.

ORAL ORDER

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

2. This criminal revision petition is filed against conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.18966/2013, wherein petitioner/accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act and directed to pay fine of Rs.6,25,000/-, defraying an amount of Rs.5,000/- to the State. The same was challenged in Crl.A.No.1133/2018 and the First Appellate Court confirmed the order of the Trial Court.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the complainant before the Trial Court while filing the complaint is that the complainant is an advertising company having its office at Bengaluru and accused is one of the regular customer of the complainant. That during the course of business, the accused had placed orders for advertisement. As per the orders, the complainant advertised the same and issued bills to the accused. The complainant also contend that after issuance of bills for total Rs.8,00,000/-, the accused towards discharge of his liability has issued Cheque dated 15.11.2012 for Rs.6,00,000/- and on presentation, the same has returned dishonoured with an endorsement ‘payment stopped by the drawer’ vide endorsement dated 16.02.2013. Hence, the complainant issued notice, the same was served, but the accused neither given reply to the notice nor complied with the demand made by the complainant. Hence, complaint was filed, the Trial Court taken cognizance, issued summons and secured the accused. The accused did not plead guilty and claimed for trial.

4. In order to prove the case, complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P19. The accused was subjected to 313 statement and thereafter, he examined himself as D.W.1 and got marked the documents as Exs.D1 to D8.

5. The Trial Court having considered the evidence of P.W.1 and also documentary evidence, particularly document of Ex.P1-cheque, signature of the accused marked as Ex.P1(a), bank endorsement, legal notice, acknowledgement and reply notice and particularly taking note of Exs.P7 to P11-invoices and Exs.P12-P15-bank statement of the accused, comes to the conclusion that there was transaction between the complainant and the accused and accused was due to the complainant. Hence, the accused has issued Cheque and did not accept the theory and defence of the accused and convicted the accused and passed an order of sentence.

6. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Trial Court, an appeal is filed before the First Appellate Court and the First Appellate Court, on re-appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, comes to the conclusion that accused has tried to set up the defence that he has not issued the Cheque and signature on the Cheque not belongs to him and complainant has stolen the Cheque and presented the same. In order to probabilize the said defence, he has deposed that after coming to know about the missing of the Cheque as per the instructions of his banker, he has given requisition for stop payment. The First Appellate Court also with regard to missing of the Cheques observed that the same cannot be accepted, because the only thin he has done is at the instructions of the banker, he has issued stop payment after writing the stop payment to the banker, the Cheque in question was issued i.e., on 15.11.2012 and he has not given any police complaint. The First Appellate Court also taken note of the fact that the documents which have been produced clearly disclose that there was transaction between the compl