TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 395
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nted by Public Prosecutor. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. I shall refer the parties in this Revision Petition as `complainant' and `accused' for convenience. 4. Shown off unnecessary narrations, the case put up by the complainant/the 1st respondent herein before the court below is as under: It is alleged by the complainant that the accused approached the complainant for a loan of Rs.10,00,000/-. At that time the complainant had availed an overdraft loan and he agreed to pay a sum of Rs.9,70,000/- to the accused with bank interest @ 13%. The accused gave his consent and the complainant transferred the sum of Rs.9,70,000/- to the bank account of the accused. On the same day, towards the repayment of the loan with interest, the accused issued a cheque bearing No.018374 dated 02.03.2015 for Rs.12,57,000/- drawn on his account in Axis Bank Ltd., Perumbavoor branch to the complainant. But when the cheque was presented for collection, the same was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. Though legal notice intimating the dishonour and demanding the amount covered by the cheque was issued and accepted by the accu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....' time is granted to pay the compensation. 10. It is the settled law that power of revision available to this Court under Section 401 of Cr.P.C r/w Section 397 is not wide and exhaustive to reappreciate the evidence to have a contra finding. In the decision reported in [(1999) 2 SCC 452 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 275], State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri, the Apex Court, while considering the scope of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court, laid down the following principles (SCC pp. 454-55, para 5): "5. ...... In its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can call for and examine the record of any proceedings for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order. In other words, the jurisdiction is one of supervisory jurisdiction exercised by the High Court for correcting miscarriage of justice. But the said revisional power cannot be equated with the power of an appellate court nor can it be treated even as a second appellate jurisdiction. Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to reappreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the evid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the principles of criminal jurisprudence and, therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence had already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge in appeal, unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice. To put it otherwise, if there is non-consideration of any relevant materials or fundamental violation of the principle of law, then only the power of revision would be made available. 13. In this case, as I have already pointed out, the trial court as well as the appellate court rightly appreciated the evidence given by PW1 supported by Exts.P1 to P7 to prove that the accused herein issued Ext.P1 cheque for consideration. Thereby the complainant proved his initial burden entitling him to get the benefit of presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I Act. 14. In this connection, I would like to refer a 3 Bench decision of the Apex Court in [2010 (2) KLT 682 (SC)], Rangappa v. Mohan. In the above decision, the Apex Court considered the presumption available to a compla....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e dealing with a case where the accused has a contention that the cheque issued was a blank cheque, it was held as under: "A meaningful reading of the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act including, in particular, Sections 20, 87 and 139, makes it amply clear that a person who signs a cheque and makes it over to the payee remains liable unless he adduces evidence to rebut the presumption that the cheque had been issued for payment of a debt or in discharge of a liability. It is immaterial that the cheque may have been filled in by any person other than the drawer, if the cheque is duly signed by the drawer. If the cheque is otherwise valid, the penal provisions of S.138 would be attracted. If a signed blank cheque is voluntarily presented to a payee, towards some payment, the payee may fill up the amount and other particulars. This in itself would not invalidate the cheque. The onus would still be on the accused to prove that the cheque was not in discharge of a debt or liability by adducing evidence." 16. In a latest 3 Bench decision of the Apex Court reported in [2021 (2) KHC 517 : 2021 KHC OnLine 6063 : 2021 (1) KLD 527 : 2021 (2) SCALE 434 : ILR 2021 (1) Ker. 855 : ....