HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.3900 of 2008 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash judgment in Criminal Revision No.110 of 2006 dated 04.06.2008 passed by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam (for short ‘appellate Court’). 2. Whereas the Petitioner herein is the revision petitioner in the Criminal Revision and accused in C.C.No.627 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam (for short ‘the trial Court’), the second respondent herein is the respondent in the Criminal Revision and complainant in the Calendar Case. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed in the Calendar Case. 3. The complaint was filed against the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act alleging that the accused borrowed on 29.01.2002 an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- and executed a demand promissory note (Ex.P.1) on the even date in favour of the complainant agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. On repeated demands made by the complainant, the accused issued a cheque bearing No.597694 dated 29.05.2004 drawn on Syndicate Bank, Survabagh branch, Visakhapatnam for an amount of Rs.3,90,000/- towards part payment of the debt. On the presentation of the cheque on 07.06.2004 by the complainant before Centurion Bank, Visakhapatnam for encashment, the same was returned with endorsement ‘funds insufficient’ vide cheque return memo dated 09.06.2004 (Ex.P.3). The said fact was intimated to the accused, but in spite of that he did not pay the amount under the cheque. The complainant got issued a legal notice dated 18.06.2004 to the accused, office copy of which is Ex.P.4, demanding the payment of amount due under the cheque. The said notice was returned as not claimed. Ex.P.5 is the returned cover. Hence the complaint. 4. Before the trial Court, the complainant got himself examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.5. For the accused D.W.1 was examined. After hearing arguments, the trial Court found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C., and in default of payment of the amount of compensation, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months whereas aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the accused preferred the Criminal Revision Petition No.100 of 2006 which was dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court and aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Petition is filed to quash the judgment in Criminal Revision Petition. 5. It is contended on behalf of the accused that as per the record one Somasundar Reddy lent amount to the accused and obtained blank promissory note and cheque signed by the accused from the accused and later the accused repaid the amount due to Somasundar Reddy and then sought for the return of the cheque and the promissory note but Somasundar Reddy failed to return them, and on the other hand promised that even though documents were not returned there would not be any risk whereas fraudulently Somasundar Reddy got filed the complaint and further the courts below failed to appreciate the matter and erroneously convicted the accused and sentenced him. 6. On the other hand it is contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that the courts below properly examined the matter and there is no reason to interfere with the same. 7. The point for consideration is :Whether sufficient grounds are there in order to quash the conviction and sentence imposed by the Courts below? 8. POINT:- The complainant/P.W.1 deposed as per the averments mentioned in the complaint. 9. It is pertinent to note here that according to the complainant the accused executed the promissory note for the amount due to him and he also issued the cheque. There is no dispute that the promissory note and the cheque contain the signatures of the accused. Therefore, it is for the accused to establish his claim placing necessary evidence. By virtue of Section 139 N.I. Act when the cheque containing the signature of the accused was given to the complainant, it is to be presumed to be true unless it is rebutted. If the cheque is accepted, it is also to be accepted the promissory note and the plea of borrowing of the amount as genuine. There is absolutely no basis to uphold the claim of the accused that the said Somasundar lent the amount to him and thereafter obtained blank promissory note and blank cheque and later he repaid the amount and requested Somasundar Reddy to return back the two documents but the latter having failed to return the documents assured that by not returning the documents there would not be any risk to him and he kept quite. There is also no basis to say that he issued any notice to that person for the return of the documents. It is something un-natural that even though the documents were not returned, necessary action was not taken by him. Therefore, the plea put-forth by the accused is not tenable. Ultimately, the claim of the complainant is to be upheld. 10. The courts below properly appreciated the evidence and there is no reason to interfere with the same. Further only lenient punishment was given to the accused. For the reasons discussed above, I do not find any grounds to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the Courts below. 11. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed accordingly. ___________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated: 02-09-2011. vjl