Conviction upheld under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act; sentence modified to hefty fine for 64-year-old petitioner.

The court confirmed the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act but modified the sentence for the petitioner, aged 64, from imprisonment to a fine of Rs. 8,00,000. The court found the non-imposition of a fine inappropriate due to prolonged litigation and diversion of state resources. Out of the fine, Rs. 7,90,000 was awarded as compensation to the respondent, and Rs. 10,000 was to be remitted to the state.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Lending capacity of the respondent.
2. Issuance of the cheque and liability.
3. Acceptance of affidavit evidence by the petitioner.
4. Sentence imposed on the petitioner.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Lending Capacity of the Respondent:

The petitioner contested that the respondent did not prove his lending capacity to draw the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. However, the court noted that the petitioner did not dispute the respondent's lending capacity at the earliest point of time or during the trial. The respondent testified about owning significant agricultural land, which was not contested during cross-examination. Therefore, the court found no perversity in the lower courts' findings regarding the respondent's lending capacity.

2. Issuance of the Cheque and Liability:

The petitioner did not dispute that the cheque (Ex.P1) belonged to his account. The respondent claimed the cheque was issued to discharge a debt. Initially, the petitioner contended that the documents were concocted but did not specifically assert that the signature on the cheque was forged. Later, the petitioner claimed that his uncle's son, Nagapathi Narayana Hegde, stole the cheque book and facilitated the respondent to file a complaint. However, this defense was not mentioned in the reply notice (Ex.P6) nor substantiated by any evidence of prosecution against Nagapathi Narayana Hegde. The court noted that the petitioner did not seek a handwriting expert's opinion to verify the signature. Consequently, the court upheld the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act that the cheque was issued for consideration and towards the discharge of liability, which the petitioner failed to rebut.

3. Acceptance of Affidavit Evidence by the Petitioner:

The petitioner argued that the trial court erred in accepting his evidence by affidavit, contrary to Section 145 of the NI Act and Section 315 of Cr.P.C. However, the petitioner voluntarily submitted his affidavit without objection. The court referenced the Supreme Court's guidelines in the Indian Bank Association case, which allows the court to accept affidavits of witnesses, including the accused, for cross-examination. The court found no jurisdictional error in the trial court's acceptance of the petitioner's affidavit and cited the Supreme Court's principle that procedural laws should aid justice rather than frustrate it.

4. Sentence Imposed on the Petitioner:

The petitioner, aged 64, sought modification of the one-year imprisonment sentence. The trial court had not imposed any fine but awarded compensation of Rs. 4,00,000 to the respondent. Considering the prolonged litigation and the diversion of state resources, the court found the non-imposition of a fine inappropriate. The court modified the sentence to a fine of Rs. 8,00,000, with a default sentence of 30 days of simple imprisonment. Out of the fine amount, Rs. 7,90,000 was to be paid to the respondent as compensation, and Rs. 10,000 was to be remitted to the state.

Conclusion:

The court confirmed the conviction for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act but modified the sentence from imprisonment to a fine, considering the petitioner's age and the circumstances of the case. The revised sentence included a fine of Rs. 8,00,000, with a default sentence of 30 days of simple imprisonment, and appropriate compensation to the respondent.

---