Shri Hanumant S/O Krishna Patil vs. Shri S M Associations R/P By Its Proprietor

Sri Mahantesh S.Hiremath, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that respondent had filed private complaint in CC.no.461/2018 before VIII JMFC Court, Belagavi alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (‘N.I. Act’ for short) by petitioner herein. In complaint it was stated that complainant was in business of supplying building materials and from December, 2017 onwards, petitioner purchased building materials worth a total of Rs.3,51,612/- and made part payment of Rs.1,50,000/- on 13th December, 2017. At that time, he had agreed to clear balance amount within six months. When he failed and complainant approached him, petitioner had issued two cheques bearing no.40821 and 40822 both dated 04.04.2018 drawn on Canara Bank, Khade Bazaar, NC: 2025:KHC-D:650 Belgaum for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each. When cheques were presented for collection on 24.04.2018, respondent received intimation on same day about their dishonor on ground of insufficient funds. Within 15 days thereafter i.e. on 09.15.2018, complainant got issued legal notice calling upon petitioner to pay cheque amount, however, notices returned unclaimed on 17.05.2018. As there was no repayment, complaint was filed on 02.06.2018. 3. Trial Judge framed following points for consideration: “
ೕಲಂಡ ಸಂಗ ಗ ಂದ ಳಕಂಡ ಅಂಶಗಳು ನನ ಪಗಣ ಬಂರುತ.

Trial Judge answered point no.1 in affirmative and point no.2 by convicting petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act and ordering payment of fine amount of Rs.2,30,000/- and in case of failure to pay fine amount, petitioner was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year.

It was submitted judgment passed by trial Court was contrary to law, without taking note of defences raised by petitioner that there were no transactions with complainant and complainant had failed to produce accounts statement. Aggrieved, petitioner filed Crl.Appeal no.290/2019 wherein following points were framed for consideration: “1) Whether the appellant shows that the finding of the trial court is perverse, capricious and illegal requiring interference in the hands of this court? NC: 2025:KHC-D:650

Without proper appreciation of contentions, Appellate Judge proceeded to dismiss appeal. Aggrieved to this, revision petition was filed.

It was submitted, Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of NC: 2025:KHC-D:650 conviction as well as orders of sentence were liable to be set- aside. On above grounds, sought for allowing petition.

On other hand, Sri Madangouda N.Patil, learned counsel for respondent opposed petition. It was submitted, contrary to contentions denying transaction, during course of cross-examination, suggestions made and admissions elicited were to effect that complainant had agreed to return cheques on payment of amount into account, therefore, cheques were given as security and not towards discharge of debt. Thus, issuance of cheques were admitted and production of invoices along with GST returns would suffice. Hence, there was no scope for interference.

Heard learned counsel and perused record.

This revision petition is under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. As per decision of Hon’ble Supreme NC: 2025:KHC-D:650

While passing impugned judgment, both Courts have taken note of defence set up by petitioner that issuance of cheques were as security and not towards discharge of legally enforceable debt. Both Courts have taken note of same as admission about due execution and issuance of cheques attracting presumption.

Insofar as contention that signatures on Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 were in different inks, have been duly examined and not accepted on ground that mere change in ink would not raise doubt. And as petitioner had suggested that he had only transacted with complainant for purchase of 8 mm sheets whereas, he was supplied with 6 mm sheets, would admit transaction between complainant and petitioner.

In light of above, since complainant produced invoices for supply of material to petitioner, production of account statement would not be necessary since account statement would be only an abstract of individual invoices. Moreover complainant had produced Form GSTR-3B (tax return), wherein transactions in Ex.P.11 series between parties are referred. Tax return would also be a document maintained NC: 2025:KHC-D:650 in normal course of business and Tax invoices and GST returns cannot be stated to be either insufficient or unacceptable evidence. Therefore finding of trial Court availing presumption in favour of cheques would not suffer from perversity, providing scope for interference.

Insofar as specific contention that complaint was filed before expiry of 15 days period from date of receipt of Exs.P.1 and 2-cheques, it is seen Exs.P.8 and 9, legal notices were issued to petitioner at two different addresses. While Ex.P.8 returned with postal share as refused, Ex.P.9 returned unclaimed. Date of return is 17.05.2018 and complaint was registered on 02.06.2018 and cognizance taken on same day.

Though contention of learned counsel for petitioner about 15 days period for making payment after from date of receipt of legal notice would be mandatory, in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Yogendra Pratap Singh Vs. NC: 2025:KHC-D:650 of filing of complaint i.e., 02.06.2018 would be 17th day.

In view of above, I do not find any justifiable grounds to interfere. Accordingly, revision petition is dismissed. (RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE