TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (11) TMI 448
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A. No. 18/2013 dated 02.01.2017 whereby the revision petitioner/accused has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('the Act' for short) and has ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 4,55,000/- with a default sentence of imprisonment for a period of six months. Out of the same, Rs. 4,50,000/- was ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant and the remaining amount shall be defrayed to the State which was confirmed in Crl.A. No. 18/2013 by order dated 02.01.2017. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows: A private complaint came to be filed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., seeking action against the revision petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s been misused by the complainant and a false case has been foisted against the accused. 5. Learned Magistrate after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and fined him in a sum of Rs. 4,55,000/- with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Out of which as sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- was ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant. Being aggrieved by the same, an appeal was filed by the complainant in Crl.A. No. 18/2013 on the file of Additional District and Session's Judge, Udupi (sitting at Kundapura), Kundapura. 6. The learned Judge in the First Appellate Court secured the records and after hearing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e rival contentions, the following points would arise for consideration; 1. Whether the revision petitioner has made out a case that the findings recorded by the learned Magistrate that the accused is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act which is confirmed by the First Appellate Court in Crl.A. No. 18/2013 is suffering from legal infirmity or capriciousness or perversity and thus calls for interference? 2. Whether the sentence is excessive? 12. In the case on hand, the issuance of cheque and the signature found on the cheque is not in dispute. According to the accused, the said cheque was issued as a security to Venugopal, who is examined as P.W. 2 in the case. In his cross-examination, there is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unt covered in the cheque being not paid, the accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. 14. Learned judge in the First Appellate Court after re-appreciation of the entire material on record, in the light of the grounds urged in the appeal came to the conclusion that the accused has not made out any case for interference. This Court in the light of the documents referred by the revision petitioner, perused the records and the impugned judgments. Admittedly, there is no positive action taken by the accused for the alleged misuse of the cheque. Further, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of INDIAN BANK ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS reported in (2014) 5 SCC 590....