The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act applies when the transaction and cheque issuance are admitted, and claims of substandard goods do not negate the enforceability of the cheque.

O R D E R

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

“.....to admit this revision on file, issue notice to the respondents, hear arguments and set aside the order of conviction passed in Crl. Appeal No.157/2021 dated 18.10.2023 on the file of the Court of Sessions, Kozhikode Division, and made in S.T No-350/2018 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate First Class (N.I. Act Cases), Kozhikode, to meet the ends of justice. ”[SIC]

2. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed against the 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.1788/2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, North Paravur. 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 the 1^st accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one week and both the accused are directed to pay jointly, a fine of Rs.3,99,103/- (Rupees three lakh ninety nine thousand one hundred three only) together with Rs.87,803/- (Rupees Eighty seven thousand eight hundred and three only) being simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the cheque amount, for the period from the date of Ext.P3 cheque to the complainant under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. In default of payment of the fine amount, the 1^st accused was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. 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 modified the sentence imposed by the trial court. Hence, this Criminal Revision Petition is filed.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The short point raised by the petitioners is that there was a business transaction between the petitioners and the 1^st respondent. The 1^st respondent agreed to supply steel bars. Three blank cheque leaves were issued in connection with the business transaction. The steel bars supplied were substandard. Therefore, the petitioners were not able to do anything with the substandard steel bars. Therefore, there is no legally enforceable right, is the contention. I cannot agree with the above contention. The transaction between the petitioners and the 1^st respondent is admitted. The issuance of blank cheque leaves is also admitted. It is also an admitted fact that the steel bars also supplied. The only contention of the petitioners is that the supplied steel bars are substandard. For that purpose, the petitioners have to approach either consumer court or for damages before a civil court or even to a criminal court alleging cheating. Since the transaction is admitted and issuance of cheque is also admitted, the presumption under Sec.139 of NI Act is attracted. Admittedly, there is no reply notice issued in this case. In such circumstances, I am not able to accept this contention.

5. The jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with the 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 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 c