Conviction upheld under Section 138 of N.I. Act, revision petition dismissed for lack of merit

The court upheld the conviction of the petitioner under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, dismissing the revision petition for lack of merit. It found that the petitioner failed to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 139 and that there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice in the lower courts' judgments. The interim relief was vacated, and parties were ordered to bear their own costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality and correctness of the judgment and order convicting the petitioner under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
2. Consideration of the evidence and presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act.
3. Evaluation of the alleged material alteration of the cheques.
4. Applicability of Sections 20 and 87 of the N.I. Act.
5. Jurisdictional error and miscarriage of justice by the lower courts.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality and Correctness of the Judgment and Order:
The petitioner challenged the judgment and order dated 13.11.2014, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, North Lakhimpur, which affirmed the conviction under Section 138 of the N.I. Act by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhimpur. The petitioner was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default stipulation.

2. Consideration of Evidence and Presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act:
The petitioner argued that the cheques were blank and given as security, thus not constituting an offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The court noted that Section 139 provides a presumption in favor of the holder of the cheque, which is rebuttable. The petitioner contended that he had rebutted this presumption, but the court found that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to counter the presumption. The court referenced several case laws, including Rangappa v. Sri Mohan, to emphasize that the presumption under Section 139 is rebuttable by a preponderance of probabilities.

3. Evaluation of Alleged Material Alteration of the Cheques:
The petitioner claimed that the respondent filled in the amounts and dates on the cheques, constituting a material alteration under Section 87 of the N.I. Act. However, the court found that the petitioner admitted to having filled in the dates and amounts himself and that there was no material alteration. The court cited the case of Bir Singh vs. Mukesh Kumar, which held that the subsequent filling in of an unfilled signed cheque by the payee does not constitute an alteration.

4. Applicability of Sections 20 and 87 of the N.I. Act:
The petitioner argued that the cheques were bills of exchange and not cheques under Sections 5 and 6 of the N.I. Act. The court rejected this argument, stating that the cheques were indeed valid under the N.I. Act and that there was no material alteration requiring consent under Section 87. The court emphasized that the presumption under Section 139 still applied and had not been successfully rebutted by the petitioner.

5. Jurisdictional Error and Miscarriage of Justice by the Lower Courts:
The petitioner claimed that the lower courts committed jurisdictional errors and that their judgments suffered from perversity. The court, however, found no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice. It stated that the High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, cannot substitute its view for that of the trial court if two views are possible, referencing the case of Helper Girdharbhai vs. Saiyed Mohmad Mirsaheb Kadri and Ors.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the revision petition, finding it devoid of merit. It upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts that the petitioner failed to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act and that there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice in the lower courts' judgments. The interim relief granted earlier was vacated, and the parties were ordered to bear their own costs.

---