Madhya Pradesh High Court
Lekhram Yaduvanshi vs Jitender Soni on 5 December, 2018
1
Cr.Rev.No.5487/2018
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR
(SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE J.P.GUPTA)
Criminal Revision No.5487/2018
Lekhram Yaduvanshi
Vs.
Jitendra Soni and another
Shri Manish Mishra, Advocate for the applicant.
None for respondent no.1.
Shri R.K.Rajput, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Whether approved for reporting : (Yes/No).
O R D E R
(05.12.2018)
1. This revision petition has been filed by the applicant assailing the impugned judgment dated 3.11.2018 passed by Second Addl. Ses- sions Judge, Multai, District Betul (M.P), in Criminal Appeal No.44/2018 affirming the judgment vide its dated 24.1.2018 passed by JMFC Multai in Criminal Case No.607/2015 whereby the appli- cant has been convicted for the offence under section 138 of the Ne- gotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to R.I. for six months with a direction to pay Rs.2,54,000/- compensation to the complainant. In default of payment of compensation, R.I. for 30 days.
2. In brief, the relevant facts of the case are that the applicant took Rs.2 Lacs by way of loan from the respondent no.1 and to discharge the liability of this loan amount, issued a cheque bearing no.011484 drawn on Central Bank of India, Multai, Betul. The cheque was pre- sented by the respondent no.1 in the Bank of Maharashtra, Branch Multai, where he has his account, however, the said cheque was dis- honoured and returned back with the endorsement of insufficiency 2 Cr.Rev.No.5487/2018 of fund in the account of borrower applicant. Thereafter, demand notice was served upon the appellant on 17.4.2015 and thereafter, on account of non-payment of the amount within the stipulated period after receiving of the notice, complaint was filed on 18.5.2015 before J.M.F.C. Multai.
3. The defence of the applicant is that he took loan of Rs.20,000/- from the father of the respondent and paid Rs.40,000/- and the dis- puted cheque was given by way of security, which was not returned by the father of the respondent and a false complaint has been made.
4. The learned trial court after appreciation of evidence, convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned above. In appeal preferred by the applicant, the learned appellate court also dismissed the appeal of the applicant and affirmed the order of the trial court. Being ag- grieved with the same, the applicant has preferred this revision.
5. This revision has been preferred on the ground that the findings of the learned courts below are perverse and contrary to the material available on record and it cannot be said that the prosecution has es- tablished its case beyond reasonable doubt. The defence taken by the applicant has been ignored by the courts below while the evi- dence also establishes the possibility of correctness of the defence. Hence, the conviction and sentence imposed on the applicant be set aside and he be acquitted of the charge.
6. Having heard the contention advanced by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, in view of this court, the find- ings of the courts below are based on the statements of the com- plainant Jitendra Soni, CW1 and relevant documents, Ex.P/1 to P/7 which are reliable and sufficient to prove the offence. After minute scrutiny of the evidence of defence witness DW1 Rupesh and appli- cant, Lekhram, DW2, the defence does not seems to be reliable. In revision, scope of appreciation of evidence is very limited and unless 3 Cr.Rev.No.5487/2018 there is perverse finding, no interference can be made in the facts finding of conviction.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant is unable to point out that no rele- vant evidence has been read or misread or the finding is of such a nature that no prudent man can arrive at the conclusion on the basis of material available on record. The applicant has taken the defence that he delivered the cheque, Ex.P/1 to the father of the respondent by way of security for payment of loan amount of Rs.20,000/- and the cheque was blank and unsigned and later on it has been mis- used. He has already repaid the loan amount of Rs.40,000/-.
8. The applicant was unable to produce any document and show the reason that despite of payment, on denial of return of the cheque why no legal action was taken by him against the father of the re- spondent. Respondent Jitendra Soni, CW1, has stated that cheque was signed by the applicant in his presence. The cheque has not been returned by the Bank on account of non-matching of signa- tures and no evidence of handwriting expert has been adduced to prove the fact that the sign on cheque, Ex.P/1 is not of him.
9. In view of the foregoing discussions, the learned trial court has not committed any legal error in discarding the defence and relying on the evidence of the respondent/complainant against the applicant and found the charge against the applicant to be proved. Hence, in view of this Court, the courts below have not committed any error in convicting and sentencing the applicant. Thus, the judgment of con- viction and sentence passed by the courts below is affirmed. And this revision prima facie has no merit stands dismissed summarily.
(J.P.Gupta) JUDGE HS Digitally signed by HEMANT SARAF Date: 2018.12.18 17:22:15 +05'30'