SATYANARAYANA Vs. SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the arguments of the revision petitioner's counsel, and the counsel appearing for the respondent.

(2.) The respondent herein filed a complaint under section 200 of Crimial P.C. for the of fence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act alleging that the petitioner herein became due for an amount of Rs. 1,40,000.00, as such he has issued cheque for an amount of Rs. 1,40,000.00 drawn on Vikas Souharda Co-Op. Bank and when the same was presented, the same was dishonoured with an endorsement 'insufficient funds' and thereafter a legal notice was issued and when the revision petitioner herein did not reply, and on arising of the cause of action, a complaint was filed. The trial Court after recording the evidence of the complainant and considering the documents Exs.P.1 to P.16, convicted the revision petitioner herein for the of fence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner herein though represented through a counsel , did not choose to lead any evidence. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, the revision petitioner preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.153/2009 and the lower appellate Court after hearing both the parties, confirmed the judgment of the trial Court. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding of the trial Court and also the lower appellate Court, the revision petitioner herein by invoking the revisional powers has filed this revision petition.

(3.) In the revision petition the main grounds urged by the revision petitioner is that the Courts below failed to consider the documentary as well as oral evidence of the respondent in a proper perspective and failed to appreciate the contentions raised and the rulings relied upon by the petitioner. The main contention is that, the issuance of cheque is not in dispute, but the same is given as security and not for any debt or liability and the trial Court also failed to consider the judgment in Sudha Beevi vs. State of Kerala, 2005 1 Crimes(HC) 456 and in spite of the respondent failed to prove the existence of legally recoverable debt, both the Courts below erroneously convicted the revision petitioner herein.