B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR,J. - (1.) The revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced concurrently by the courts below under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the N.I. Act').
(2.) Heard.
(3.) The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has argued that even though the cheque in question was issued by the revision petitioner without putting the date, the complainant did not examine the person who had written the date in the cheque and in the said circumstances, the conviction and sentence passed by the courts below cannot be sustained. The learned counsel relied on the decision of the learned Single Judge of this court in Santhi v. Mary Sherly [2011(3) KLT 273 ] to buttress his argument. In Santhi (supra), the learned Single Judge observed that if the cheque is written not by the accused, the person who actually wrote in the cheque can be examined to prove that he filled up the cheque, under the instruction of the accused or at his instance. The court further held in Santhi (supra) that if such evidence is not available, the prosecution can establish execution by placing circumstantial evidence either oral or documentary before the court. In this case, PW1 clearly stated that the date in the cheque in question was written by the Accountant of the revision petitioner in the presence of PW1. Having gone through the evidence of PW1, I do not find any reason to dis-believe his evidence that the date in the cheque was written by the Accountant of the revision petitioner. Therefore, the argument in this regard cannot be accepted.;