A cheque dishonoured due to 'account blocked' or 'dormant' status still attracts Section 138 of the NI Act if the drawer fails to make payment after receiving a statutory demand notice.

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE CONFIRMED ORDER, DATED 01.04.2023 IN CRL.A.NO.101/2022, PASSED BY COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-I, AT SHIVAMOGGA AND CONVICTION ORDER, DATED 13.07.2022 PASSED BY COURT OF IV ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT SHIVAMOGGA IN C.C.NO.4490/2017 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT AND ALLOW ABOVE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

ORAL ORDER

Challenging concurrent, erroneous judgment dated 01.04.2023 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-I, Shivamogga, in Crl.A.no.101/2022 confirming judgment dated 13.07.2022 passed by IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Shivamogga, in C.C.no.4490/2017, this revision petition is filed.

2. Sri KV Sateeshchandra, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that this revision petition is against concurrent findings convicting petitioner (accused) for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('NI Act' for short).

3. It was submitted, proceedings were initiated in pursuance of private complaint filed by respondent (complainant) under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1978 ('CrPC' for short) alleging that complainant and accused were in cordial terms for several years, accused would borrow amount for his requirements and on 21.08.2016, accused borrowed Rs.1,75,000/- in cash agreeing to repay it within 11 months. But, failed to repay it within time and on demand, issued cheque bearing no.076025 dated 13.07.2017 for Rs.1,75,000/- drawn on Lakshmi Vilas Bank, which when presented for collection, returned dishonored with endorsement 'account blocked' and thereafter, even when demand notice dated 14.08.2017 got issued by complainant was served on accused on 16.08.2017, he failed to repay amount within time stipulated and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act.

4. It was submitted, on appearance, accused denied charges and sought trial. Thereafter, complainant examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P5. Thereafter, incriminating material was explained to accused and which were denied and his statement under Section 313 of CrPC was recorded. It was submitted, on explaining incriminating material, accused stated that he had borrowed Rs.50,000/- and paid Rs.30,000/- and for non repayment of balance of Rs.20,000/-, complainant had retained cheque and even after said amount was repaid, complainant had not returned cheque. Subsequently, accused deposed as DW.1 and also examined one witness as DW.2 but did not get marked any documents.

5. It was submitted, accused had substantiated defence, firstly contending that cheque in question was issued as security for earlier borrowal of Rs.50,000/- which was repaid in two installments i.e., Rs.30,000/- and Rs.20,000/- but cheque was not returned and misused by complainant for present proceedings and as well as denying financial capacity of complainant to lend said amount. Apart from above, it was submitted, complainant was unable to state particulars of date when accused had approached him for lending money which cast doubt about lending and probablized defence. It was further contended that dishonor of cheque on ground of 'account blocked as dormant' would not attract Section 138 of NI Act and submitted that both Courts failed to appreciate above factors and erroneously convicted accused and as such, they suffered from perversity and called for interference. On above grounds, sought