Court upholds guilty verdict under Section 138 NI Act, dismisses revision petition, praises amicus curiae

The accused's arguments regarding lack of opportunity for cross-examination, absence of a creditor-debtor relationship, and invalid service of notice demanding payment were dismissed by the Court. The Court upheld the Trial Court's judgment, finding the accused guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The sentence imposed was considered appropriate, and the revision petition was dismissed. The Court praised the amicus curiae's service and recommended an honorarium for each, with the Order to be promptly transmitted to the relevant Courts.

---

---

Issues involved:
Accused's opportunity for cross-examination, existence of creditor-debtor relationship, service of notice demanding payment of cheque amount.

Analysis:

1. Accused's opportunity for cross-examination:
The accused contended that he was not given a reasonable opportunity to cross-examine the complainant. However, a detailed examination of the order sheets revealed that the Trial Court provided numerous chances for cross-examination, but the accused failed to utilize them effectively. Despite multiple opportunities, the accused did not adequately cross-examine the complainant. Therefore, the argument that the accused was denied a fair opportunity for cross-examination was deemed unacceptable by the Court.

2. Existence of creditor-debtor relationship:
The accused claimed that there was no creditor-debtor relationship as he alleged the cheque was stolen from his house. However, the complainant's testimony, supported by bank records, clearly established the loan transaction. The complainant provided evidence that she had paid the loan amount to the accused through cheques, corroborated by bank statements showing the transactions. The Court found the evidence undeniable and concluded that a creditor-debtor relationship existed between the parties, rejecting the accused's defense.

3. Service of notice demanding payment of cheque amount:
The accused argued that there was no valid service of notice demanding the payment of the cheque amount. However, the complainant presented evidence of sending the notice through registered post and certificate of posting. The Court determined that when a notice is sent to the correct address with appropriate postage, the accused's failure to claim the notice constitutes deemed service. Additionally, the complainant's evidence and documentation proved the service of notice, rendering the argument of non-service invalid.

In conclusion, the Court found no grounds for interference in the Trial Court's judgment. Both lower courts correctly held the accused guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The sentence imposed was deemed proportionate to the offense committed. Therefore, the revision petition was dismissed, and the Court commended the amicus curiae for their service, recommending an honorarium for each. The Order was to be transmitted to the concerned Courts promptly.

---