JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)This revision is filed challenging concurrent findings of guilt of the revision petitioner for an offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the NI Act') and passing of orders of conviction and sentence by Special Judicial First Class Magistrate Court (NI Act Cases), Kozhikode (for short 'the trial court') in S.T.No.236/2017 and Additional Court of Sessions V, Kozhikode (for short 'the appellate court') in Crl.Appeal No.246/2019. The revision petitioner is the accused in the case on hand.
(2.)Sri.P.V.Vinod, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner urged to admit the revision petition mainly on two grounds:
The first one was that neither in the complaint nor in the proof affidavit filed by the complainant, the date of execution of the cheque and the place where it was executed are not mentioned. According to him the prosecution is only to fail for the reason. The second argument was that the case of the complainant that Rs.3,37,500.00 was advanced by him to the accused without the transaction being witnessed by anyone else and without obtaining any security is a highly improbable one and in such a context, the trial court ought not to have taken a view that the execution is proved by the complainant and the presumptions under Ss. 139 and 118(a) NI Act are applicable. According to the learned counsel, the judgments assailed suffer for improper appreciation of evidence and are liable to be reversed in revision.
(3.)On a reading of the judgments assailed, this Court is convinced that the revision petitioner had admitted issuance of a signed cheque before the trial court. The position of law is now settled by the Apex Court in Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar [2019(1) KHC 774 (SC)] that concurrent findings, evenif erroneous, are not liable to be interfered with unless it is shown that those suffer on account of a jurisdictional error.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.