O R D E R

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the concurrent findings of the Courts below in a private complaint initiated under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act [hereinafter referred to as “NI Act”].

2. According to the complainant, the petitioner herein borrowed a sum of Rs.2,80,000/- from a financial institution on 27.08.2008. The money was disbursed by way cash for a sum of Rs.90,000/- and by way of cheque for a sum of Rs.1,80,000/-. The loan was advanced on a specific understanding that the accused will repay the loan with interest at the rate of 19.2% per annum payable by monthly installments of Rs.23,670/-. However, the accused failed to clear the loan amount and as on 22.02.2011 for a sum of Rs.1,80,000/-, which was due and payable, the accused issued a cheque to discharge the said liability. However, the cheque was returned with an endorsement “insufficient funds”. Hence the complaint after statutory notice.

3. The accused denied the liability and issuance of cheque for the enforceable debt. According to the accused, the cheque was obtained by the complainant as a security and it has been presented by filling up the amount and date. To substantiate the defense, he filed a petition under Section 91 of Cr.P.C, for production of documents pertaining to the loan transaction through Ex.D1 to Ex.D7, which were marked through DW1 during the cross-examination. The accused contended that 12 postdated cheques were given towards the loan amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, which was sanctioned by the the complainant and a blank cheque has also been given as security, which was misused by the complainant after two years. The loan sanctioned letter, dated 27.08.2008, clearly indicates that the loan sanctioned was only a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. After receipt of Section 91 of Cr.P.C summons, the documents, namely pro-note for Rs.2,80,000, a receipt for Rs.90,000 as cash, were manipulated and created.

4. However his defense was not found favour by the Courts below and the trial Court had convicted the accused/petitioner to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment and to pay the cheque amount of a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- as compensation. On appeal, the lower Appellate Court has confirmed this order. Aggrieved by the same, this Revision petition has been filed.

5. By way of revision, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the loan documents, which are marked as Ex.D1 to Ex.D7, would clearly indicates that the subject cheque was issued along with the other 12 postdated cheques to discharge the loan amount through EMI of Rs.23,670/-. The statement of accounts/Ex.P9 issued by the complainant clearly indicates that except three cheques, each Rs.23,670/-, there was no other due and payable. However after lapse of more than three years from the date of advancing the loan, the blank cheques have been misused and presented for collection of Rs.1,80,000/-. Therefore, the findings of the Courts below is erroneous as the cheque given as a security has been misused.

6. Further pointing out certain corrections in the receipt marked as Ex.P2, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that only Rs.1,88,000/- was disbursed as loan after deducting Rs.12,000/- towards service charge. His further contention is that the alleged promissory note and receipt were manufactured subsequent to order passed by this Court for production of documents.

7. The learned counsel for the de facto complainant would submit that the document which were produced pursuant to Section 91 of Cr.P.C summons, as well as, Ex.P1 to Ex.P9 were all documents which were maintained in the normal course of transaction and there is no manipulation or fabrication as alleged.

8. Both the Courts below, which are fact findings Courts, after perusing the document and evidences, have came to concurrent findings that the petitioner is guilty. Therefore, when there is no error or illegality in the findings of the Court below, the power of the High Court exercising its revision