The conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was upheld due to failure to rebut the presumption of validity regarding cheque issuance.

O R D E R

This criminal revision petition has been filed challenging the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, 'the NI Act').

st

2. The 1 respondent, a partnership firm preferred a private complaint against the petitioner herein and M/s.AL-DF Group, a partnership firm before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kollam as S.T.No.320 of 2018. The petitioner is stated to be the Managing Partner of the said firm. The case of the 1^st respondent is that M/s.AL-DF Group purchased floor tiles from it on credit basis and towards the part payment, Exts.P3 and P3(a) cheques were issued, which, on presentation, were dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. Even though a statutory notice under Section 138 (b) of NI Act was issued and received by the petitioner, there was no compliance. Hence the prosecution was lodged.

3. Before the trial court, PW1 was examined and Exts.P1 to P6(a) were marked. No evidence was adduced on the side of the defence, After trial, the trial court found the petitioner as well as the firm guilty under Section 138 of the NI Act and they were convicted for the said offence. They were sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of ₹1,48,715/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for 60 days. The petitioner as well as the firm challenged the conviction and sentence of the trial court before the Additional Sessions Court-V, Kollam (for short, 'the appellate court') in Crl.Appeal No.93 of 2021. The appellate court confirmed the conviction and sentence of the petitioner and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed against the firm. This revision petition has been filed challenging the judgments of the trial court as well as the appellate court.

4. I have heard Sri.S.Sreekumar (Kollam), the learned counsel for the petitioner, Adv.Bhanu Thilak, the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent and Smt.V.Sreeja, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

5. The petitioner has admitted that he, on behalf of the firm, purchased floor tiles from the 1^st respondent on credit basis. However, his case is that the amount has been repaid. To prove the case of the 1^st respondent, PW1 was examined. He gave evidence in tune with the averments in the complaint. Even though PW1 has been cross examined in length, nothing tangible could be extracted to discredit his testimony. The 1^st respondent has succeeded in proving the transaction, execution and issuance of the cheque. The petitioner failed to adduce any rebuttal evidence to rebut the presumption available to the 1^st respondent under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act. I find no reason to interfere with the judgments of the trial court as well as the appellate court.

Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is dismissed.

However, the petitioner is granted three months' time to appear before the trial court to receive the sentence till the rising of the court and to deposit the fine amount.