The presumption in favor of the complainant under the Negotiable Instruments Act governs cases of dishonored cheques, requiring robust evidence from the defense to overturn convictions.

ORDER

The above Criminal Revision Petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“to set aside the Judgment dated 21/10/2019 in Crl.Appeal 221/2016 of Learned Addl. Sessions Judge -I Mavelikkara and the Judgment dated 28/09/2016 in S.T No. 5/2016 of Learned Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Mavelikkara and to acquit the Revision Petitioner.”[SIC]

2. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed against the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence imposed on the Revision petitioner by the trial court and the appellate court. The Revision petitioner is the accused in S.T. No.5/2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Mavelikara. It is a prosecution initiated against the petitioner alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'NI Act'). The learned Magistrate after a full fledged trial found that the petitioner is guilty under of the NI Act and he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay a compensation of Rs.4,12,500/- (Rupees Four lakhs twelve thousand and five hundred only) to the complainant under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. In default of payment of the compensation amount, the petitioner was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three months. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, an appeal is filed before the appellate court. The appellate court, after re-appreciating the evidence, confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court. Hence, this Criminal Revision Petition is filed.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Revision petitioner, learned counsel for the 1^st respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The revision petitioner raised two points. The first point raised by the counsel is that the amount is actually paid to a firm. The petitioner collected the amount and paid to the firm. But the firm is not a party. I cannot agree with the above contention for the simple reason that the case of the complainant is that the amount is paid to the petitioner through bank transaction and not by the firm. Therefore, that contention will not stand. The second point raised by the petitioner is that the execution of the cheque is not proved. It is a fact that two courts concurrently found that the execution of the cheque is proved. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, PW1 has not adduced any evidence to prove the execution of the cheque. As far as a prosecution under Section 138 of the NI Act is concerned, there is presumption under Section 139 and 118 of the NI Act. If the basic ingredients of the offences are made out by the complainant, there is a presumption in favour of the complainant. Admittedly, in this case, no reply is sent by the accused after getting the statutory notice. That itself will go a long way against the accused. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court need not interfere with the concurrent finding of fact regarding the execution of cheque in a revision filed by the accused under Sections 397 and 401 of the Cr.P.C.

5. The jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence invoking the powers of revisional jurisdiction is very limited. Unless there is illegality, irregularity and impropriety, this Court need not interfere with the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence. This Court anxiously considered the impugned judgments and the contentions of the Revision petitioner. I am of the considered opinion that there is nothing to interfere with the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner. The trial court and the appellate court considered the entire evidence and thereafter found that the petitioner was guilty under Section 138 of the NI Act.