TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (1) TMI 1181
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ault sentence of simple imprisonment for six months and out of the fine amount recovered, a sum of Rs. 1,93,000/- shall be paid to the complainant as compensation as provided under Section 357 Cr.PC., and a sum of Rs. 5,000/- shall be remitted to the State as fine, which judgment was confirmed by an order dated 3rd November, 2014 in Criminal Appeal No.608/2013 by the Fast Track (Sessions) Judge-V, Bengaluru City. 2. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the Revision Petition are as under: A complaint came to be filed against the accused u/s.200 Cr.PC., under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act contending that the complainant and accused are acquainted with each other for several years and in the month of August....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....losure of the evidence, the accused statement as contemplated u/s.313 Cr.PC., was recorded, wherein the accused has denied all the incriminating materials put to him. 4. On behalf of the accused, the accused himself was examined as DW1 and relied on seven documentary evidence which were exhibited and marked as Exhibits D-1 to D-7 comprising of Passbook, Employee Service Certificate, Notice of Payment of Gratuity, Details of Final settlement, Letter to the Manager of Bank, Letter under RTI to transfer and letter to Asst. Registrar of Co-op. Societies. 5. Learned Magistrate on cumulative consideration of both the oral and documentary evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the accused has committed an offence u/s.138 of the Negotiab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed and the same is also totally ignored by the learned Magistrate and the first Appellate Court and thus sought for allowing the revision petition. 8. The counsel Sri M.S. Harinath, who is on record for respondent is absent. 9. In the light of the arguments advanced on behalf of the Revision Petitioner and after perusal of the records of both the courts, the following points that would arise for consideration: (i) Whether the finding recorded by the learned Magistrate that accused has committed an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act confirmed by the first Appellate Court is erroneous? (ii) Whether the sentence passed by the learned Magistrate and confirmed by the first Appellate Court is excessive? 10. Answer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... notice. So also, even after appearing before the learned Magistrate, accused did not take any steps to lodge a complaint against the complainant that he has mis-used the cheque which was issued in the year 2006 nor atleast there was a demand for return of the cheque. In the absence of such evidence placed by the accused, this court is of the considered opinion that the finding recorded by the learned Magistrate which was upheld by the first Appellate Court that the accused has failed to establish his defence and failed to rebut the presumption available to the complainant u/s.139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, is based on sound legal principles and does not suffer from any legal infirmity whatsoever. 13. Thus, the finding recorded by ....