Concurrent findings under Section 138 NI Act upheld; no interference absent perversity in evidence evaluation.

O R D E R

The concurrent verdicts of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Alathur, and the Sessions Court, Palakkad, in C.C.No.375/2011 & Crl.A.No.255/2014 respectively, convicting the petitioner for the commission of offence under Section 138 the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881(in short, ‘NI Act’) and sentencing him to imprisonment till rising of the Court with a further direction to pay compensation of Rs.8,50,000/- under Section 357 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(in short, ‘Cr.PC’) are under challenge in this revision petition.

2. The prosecution case relates to the dishonour of Ext P2 cheque dated 30.04.2014 for an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- issued by the petitioner to the complainant/first respondent, and the non-payment of the cheque amount despite the receipt of statutory notice. The Trial Court relied on the evidence tendered by the complainant as PW1 and the documents marked as Exts P1 to P5, P6 series and P7 series. One defence document brought on record as Ext D1 was also taken into account by the learned Magistrate. It is after the evaluation of the aforesaid evidence that the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner as stated above for the commission of offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. In the appeal, the learned Session Judge, made a re-appraisal of the entire evidence and concurred with the findings of the Trial Court. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, confirming the verdict rendered by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the above concurrent verdicts of the courts below, the petitioner is here before this Court with this revision petition.

3. Since there was no representation on the part of the revision petitioner on repeated posting dates, notice was issued to him from the Registry intimating the adjournment of the case and also informing him that the case would be decided in his absence, if there is no representation on the adjourned posting date. The aforesaid notice was returned with the endorsement ‘insufficient address’. In the above circumstances, Adv. Mr Alex John Pulimood was appointed as Amicus Curiae to represent the petitioner.

4. Heard the learned Amicus Curiae representing the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala. 5. The Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court placed heavy reliance upon the evidence tendered by the complainant through his oral testimony as PW1 and the documents marked as Exts P1 to P5 and P6 series and P7 series to come to the conclusion that the complainant has successfully established the commission of offence under Section 138 of the NI Act by the petitioner herein. The defence case set up by the petitioner about the procurement of a signed blank cheque leaf pursuant to the interference of Wadakkanchery Police in a dispute between the petitioner and the complainant about the transfer of property, has been rightly rejected by the courts below. It is not possible for this Court to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below in the above regard in the absence of anything to show that the courts below dealt with the evidence on record in a perverse manner. The revision petitioner had sought the indulgence of this Court in the documents produced as Annexures-A to F to buttress his contention that the case of the complainant about the transaction leading to the issuance of Ext P2 cheque is false. As already stated above, it is not possible for this Court to evaluate the evidence adduced before the courts below, or to accept additional evidence in this revision proceedings, in the absence of anything to show that the verdicts of the courts below were the offshoot of manifest illegality or impropriety warranting the interfer