Criminal Revision Petition No. 576 of 2002 · Kerala High Court · 2009

Crl.R.P.No.576/022below concurrently came to the conclusion that the evidence on the side of the complainant can be safely believed and that shows that there was a legally enforcible debt/liability and for discharge of the same, the cheque was issued. Accordingly, the courts below proceeded to pass the impugned concurrent judgments. 4. Called upon to explain the nature of the challenge which the petitioner wants to mount against the impugned concurrent judgments, the learned counsel for the petitioner reiterates the contention that the cheque was not issued by the accused to the complainant for the due discharge of any legallyenforcible debt/liability. It was issued as a blank signed chequeas security when the accused entered into a transaction with thecomplainant's father-in-law. The evidence of DW1 should have been believed by the courts, it is contended.5.I have rendered my anxious consideration to the contentions raised.

I am unable to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. The oral evidence of PW1 clearly shows the circumstances under which the cheque was received by the complainant. That version of the complainant is eminently supported by the absence of a response to the notice Crl.R.P.No.576/023of demand which was duly served on the accused. Thepresumption under Section 139 of the N.I.Act stares at the accused. The evidence of DW1 was found by the courts below tobe not convincing for acceptance. I am unable to agree that there are any circumstances justifying interference with the findings of fact rendered concurrently by the court below. 6. The learned counsel finally submits that the petitioner is entitled for leniency. The sentence imposed is S.I for six months and compensation of Rs.50,000/-. I have already adverted to the principles governing imposition of sentence in aprosecution under Section 138 of the N.I.Act in the decision in Anilkumar vs.