TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 213
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lhi, for the offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('NI Act'). 4. Subsequently, vide order on sentence dated 24.09.2020, the Petitioner No. 2 was sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of twelve months and a fine in the sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- and in the default in payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Similarly, the Petitioner No. l company was also sentenced to pay a fine in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- to Respondent No. 2/Complainant. 5. Succinctly stated, the facts leading to the present dispute are in August 2014, Petitioner No. 2 purchased certain firefighting equipment, safety products and industrial products from Respondent No. 2, against Tax Invoice under Book No. 8. Serial No. 366 dated 04.09.2014 for a sum of Rs. 1,48,084/- (Rupees One Lakh Forty-Eight Thousand Eighty-Four Only). 6. Thereafter, the Petitioner No. 2 issued a cheque in the favour of Respondent No. 2 Company bearing Cheque No. 000178 dated 12.10.2014 for a sum of Rs. 1,46,734/-, drawn on HDFC Bank, Kalka Ji, New Delhi for payment against the aforementioned invoice and deducted Rs. 1,350/- from the total invoice ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8 of the NI Act. It is consequently prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 16. Submissions heard and record perused. Analysis 17. It is pertinent to note that since the petitioner has preferred a revision petition before this Court thereby challenging the concurrent findings of the learned ASJ and learned CMM, the role of this Court is limited to assessing the correctness, legality and propriety of the impugned judgment. 18. It is well settled that this Court ought to exercise restraint, and should not interfere with the findings of the impugned orders or reappreciate evidence solely because another view is possible unless the impugned orders are wholly unreasonable or untenable in law. [Ref. SanjaysinhRamrao Chavan v. DattarayGulabrao Phalke: (2015) 3 SCC 123]. It is not open to the Court to misconstrue the revisional proceedings as a second appeal by sitting in appeal over the challenged orders. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri : (1999) 2 SCC 452 discussed the scope of revisional jurisdiction and held as under: "5. ...... In its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can call for and exam....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the courts ought to have proceeded on the premise that the cheque was, indeed, issued in discharge of a debt/liability. The entire focus would then necessarily have to shift on the case set up by the accused, since the activation of the presumption has the effect of shifting the evidential burden on the accused. The nature of inquiry would then be to see whether the accused has discharged his onus of rebutting the presumption. If he fails to do so, the court can straightaway proceed to convict him, subject to satisfaction of the other ingredients of Section 138. If the court finds that the evidential burden placed on the accused has been discharged, the complainant would be expected to prove the said fact independently, without taking aid of the presumption. The court would then take an overall view based on the evidence on record and decide accordingly. 55. At the stage when the courts concluded that the signature had been admitted, the court ought to have inquired into either of the two questions (depending on the method in which the accused has chosen to rebut the presumption) : Has the accused led any defence evidence to prove and conclusively establish that there exi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of any goods, or of the challan process. He was unable to remember if petitioner had returned the material to the Respondent No. 2 and stated that he never had any direct dealing with the customers. 27. The evidence of DW-2/Vinod Mondal, who had allegedly delivered the defective goods on behalf of the Petitioners, reveals that he has failed to prove his employment with the petitioner. He had denied having any knowledge of the articles supplied by him and even admitted that delivery challan dated 16.10.2014 was not prepared by him. 28. The learned ASJ as well as the learned ACMM have rightly observed that the there is no document on record to prove that the goods delivered by the Respondent No. 2 were defective. 29. It is noteworthy that even the delivery challan (Ex. DW1/A) is dated 16.10.2014, which is after the issuance of the cheque on 12.10.2014. Even the delivery challan nowhere states that goods were being returned due to defects; rather, it contains a typed endorsement: "Please receive the following goods in good condition." Further, no complaint regarding defective goods was raised between the date of issuance of Tax Invoice i.e. 04.09.2014 and the date of issuanc....