GURUVAYURAPPAN Vs. DHANSHREE CREDITS INVESTMENTS AND KURIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Would the presumption referred to in Section 146 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, 'the Act') extend to the cause of dishonour stated in a memo of dishonour issued from the drawee Bank, or the presumption is regarding the fact of dishonour alone, is the question raised for a decision in this revision.

(2.) Petitioner faced trial in the Court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Palakkad in S.T. No. 808 of 2005 on a private complaint preferred by respondent No.l, a Private Limited Company engaged in conducting Kuries. According to respondent No.l, petitioner joined three Kuries run by it, two tickets having a Sale of Rs. 1,25,000 each and another having a Sale of Rs. 3,00,000. All the Kuries were prized by the petitioner and he received the respective prize money undertaking to pay the future instalments without default. He failed to keep up the undertaking. Respondent No.l alleged that as per ticket Nos. 41/ 84 Rs. 67,500 and Rs. 70,000 respectively, are due. As per Kuri ticket No. 44/29 Rs.1,90,000 is due, Petitioner paid Rs.1,500. Respondent No. 1 issued notice to the petitioner on 4.7.2003 demanding payment of entire balance amount due. Petitioner paid another sum of Rs.1,000. For the balance sum of Rs.1,35,000 covered by ticket Nos.

(3.) So far as execution of the cheques is concerned evidence is given by PW1. It is not disputed that petitioner had issued Ext. P3 and P4 cheques to respondent No.l in connection with the Kuri transaction. Petitioner made an attempt to disprove the claim of respondent No.l regarding the amount due by summoning relevant day books, ledger extract, etc., from respondent No.l. Those documents are marked as Exs. D1 to D5. Those documents did not hold the petitioner in his challenge to the amount due. Courts below referred to Exs Dl to D5 also and found that amount as stated in Exs. D3 and P4 was due to respondent No.l. Accordingly it was found that petitioner has issued the cheques in favour of respondent No.l for discharge of legally enforceable debt/liability. That finding rested on a proper appreciation of evidence which required no interference in revision.