A reply notice alone is insufficient to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; such claims must be supported by oral or documentary evidence.

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 25.11.2020 PASSED BY THE LXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGLAURU IN CRL.A.NO.1356/2018 AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 10.07.2018 PASSED BY THE XXII ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.21363/2017 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE CRL.A. IN CRL.A.NO.1356/2018 AS PRAYED FOR.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard Sri Aadeesh P. for Sri Sachin B.S, learned counsel for the petitioner. Respondent though served with notice of revision petition has remained absent.

2. Accused has suffered an order of conviction in C.C.No.21363 of 2017, confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.1356 of 2018 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'N.I. Act') is the revision petitioner.

3. Facts of the case are as under:-

A complaint came to be lodged under Section 200 Cr.P.C, alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act in the respect of a dishonored cheque issued by the accused. Learned trial Magistrate after completing the necessary formalities recorded the plea of the accused. Accused pleaded not guilty therefore, trial was held.

4. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, complainant got examined as PW1 and placed on record ten documents comprising of original cheque, bank endorsement, copy of the legal notice, postal acknowledgment, reply notice, on demand promissory notes, statement of account pertaining to the Karnataka Bank Ltd. and RTC extracts.

5. As against the material evidence placed on record, there was no defence evidence inasmuch as accused did not step into the witness box nor placed any documentary evidence on his behalf.

6. Thereafter, learned trial Magistrate heard the arguments of the parties and on cumulative consideration of the material on record convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and imposed the fine of ₹.9,00,000/- of which sum of ₹.8,98,000/- was ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant.

7. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.1356 of 2018. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties and by re-appreciation of the material evidence on record, dismissed the appeal of the accused. Thereafter, accused is before this Court in this revision petition.

8. Sri Aadeesh P. learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, vehemently contended that the reply notice itself is sufficient enough to rebut the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the N.I. Act, which has not been properly appreciated by the learned judge in the learned trial Magistrate, resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision petition.

9. Having heard the argument of counsel for the petitioner, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

10. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that Ex.P1 - Cheque belongs to accused and signature found therein is that of the accused.

11. Admittedly, cheque came to be dishonored and legal notice was issued. An untenable reply came to be issued by the accused and contents of the reply is not probabilised by placing oral or documentary evidence on record.

12. The contents of the reply alone cannot rebut the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of