TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (12) TMI 313
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ordered Rs. 90,000/- as compensation payable to the complainant under Section 357(1) of the Cr.P.C. 2. The revision petitioner was the accused in S.T.No.612/99 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thrissur and the appellant in Crl.Appeal No.599/2004 on the file of the third Additional Sessions Court, (Ad hoc), Fast Track- I, Thrissur. The 1st respondent filed a complaint before the trial court alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act against the accused. Upon consideration of the complaint, the learned Magistrate is prima facie satisfied that the case is made out against the accused. Hence, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act and the case was taken on file as S.T.No.612/99. Parties are hereinafter referred to as the 'complainant' and 'accused' according to their status in the court below unless otherwise stated. 3. It is the case of the complainant that the accused had entered into a lease agreement with the complainant company on 09.05.97. Consequent to the agreement, the vehicle bearing registration No.KL 7 Q 7646 was leased out to the accused on agreeing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e provisions of Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I.Act. Section 118 of the N.I.Act provides certain presumptions to be raised laying down some special rules of evidence relating to presumptions. The presumption, therefore, is a matter of principle to infuse credibility to negotiable instruments including cheques and to encourage and promote the use of negotiable instruments in financial transactions. Section 118 of the N.I.Act provides presumptions to be raised until the contrary is proved, (i) as to consideration, (ii) as to date of instrument, (iii) as to time of acceptance, (iv) as to time of transfer, (v) as to order of indorsements, (vi) as to appropriate stamp, and (vii) as to holder being a holder in due course. That apart, Section 139 of the N.I.Act provides that it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in Section 138 of the N.I.Act for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability. Applying the definition of the word 'proved' in Section 3 of the Evidence Act to the provisions of Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I.Act, it becomes evident that in a trial under Section....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....que in Ext.D2 and contended that there was no legally enforceable debt. 11. The accused admitted execution of Ext.P4 cheque in favour of the complainant. Regarding the amount claimed under Ext.P4 cheque, the complainant filed Ext.D1 suit for recovery of money before the Munsiff Court, Thrissur. The amount covered under Ext.D1 is Rs. 76,247.99. The cheque No.178931 is dated 21.7.98 drawn on South Indian Bank Ltd., Meladoor Branch. The certified copy of Ext.P4 cheque No.178931 in this case is marked as Ext.A5 in Ext.D2 judgment. Ext.D1 plaint was presented before the court on 15.10.99. Item No.2 in the list of documents as per Ext.D1 is the cheque No.178931 dated 21.7.98. Crl.M.P.No.6082/98 was filed by the complainant against the accused before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thrissur alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act on 23.12.98. In paragraph 3 of the complaint, it is stated that the accused came down to the complainant's office at Thrissur and issued a cheque for Rs. 76,247.99 bearing No.178931 dated 21.7.98 drawn on South Indian Bank Ltd., Meladoor Branch in favour of the complainant in discharge of the existing liability t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le and the accused was the registered owner of the vehicle. According to the civil court, an owner of the vehicle cannot lease the vehicle to himself. It was further held that the outstanding amount covered under Ext.P4 cheque which was produced as Ext.A5 in the civil case was not proved. Rightly or wrongly, the civil court entered a finding that the amount covered under Ext.P4 was not recoverable from the accused. The said finding has not been set aside in a process known to law. The finding has become conclusive between the parties. Sitting in revision, this Court has no jurisdiction to examine the correctness of the decision taken by the civil court. Going by the tenor of judgment, it is clear that, what was covered under Ext.P4 is not a legally enforceable debt. The very foundation of the case set up herein is found against the complainant in the civil suit between the very same parties. Merely because criminal case and civil case are maintainable in respect of the very same cheque, the same itself is not sufficient to hold that the amount which has been found not recoverable by a civil court between the same parties can be enforced through criminal proceedings under Section 13....