1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Revision No.97/2009 Satyanarayan Ramnth Gupta ..vs.. M/s. Purohit Cement Pvt. Ltd., thr. Its Managing Director Shri Rakesh Banwarilal Purohit. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. F. N. Funde, Advocate for applicant. Mr. S. V. Bhutada, Advocate for non applicant. CORAM:- R. Y. GANOO, J. DATED:- 22 nd JULY, 2009. 1. Non applicant filed Criminal Case No. 391/2002 in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur being Special Court under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The said case was tried by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (hereinafter referred to as learned ‘trial Judge’) and by judgment and order dated 13.09.2006, learned trial Judge convicted the applicant and ordered that he should suffer simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/-. In default of the payment of fine, the applicant was ordered to suffer imprisonment for 15 days. Compensation of Rs. 80,000/- was also ordered to be paid to the non applicant. Being aggrieved by this judgment and order, the applicant filed 2 Criminal Appeal No. 245/2006 in the District and Sessions Court at Nagpur. The said appeal came to be assigned to learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagpur who, by judgment and order dated 17.03.2007, dismissed the said appeal. 2. Being aggrieved by the order passed by learned trial Judge imposing lesser punishment, the non applicant had also filed revision application in the District Court being Criminal Revision No. 89/2007, which was also heard by learned District Judge-6 and Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagpur. The said revision application came to be dismissed. Against which no proceedings are filed in any Court. 3. Being aggrieved by order dated 17.03.2009, thereby confirming the order passed by learned trial Judge, the applicant has filed this revision application. 4. I have heard learned Advocate for the applicant as well as non applicant. The applicant happens to be dealer of non applicant. According to the applicant, he used to get certain quantity of cement from the non applicant and the applicant used to pay costs of said cement by cheque and the said transaction used to be over. It was argued by learned Advocate for the applicant that cheque numbers and other particulars 3 used to be mentioned on the invoice and proper documentation was made as such every time and the transactions used to be secured of. 5. The present complaint came to be filed on the basis of dishonour of in all five cheques amounting to Rs. 70,000/-. The defence put up by the applicant before learned trial Judge was that at the time of entering into the dealership agreement, the applicant had delivered to the non applicant in all five cheques duly signed by the applicant and said cheques were handed over by way of security for the transaction to be entered into between the applicant and the non applicant. 6. I have heard learned Advocates for both the sides and considered material on record. It is required to be observed that the applicant has not discharged his burden cast on him to show that the cheques were handed over by way of security. 7. If it was the contention of the applicant that at the time of entering the dealership agreement, cheques were to be delivered by way of security, there ought to have been sufficient material in the nature of agreement in writing. There is no such agreement in writing produced before the Court. 8. The next point, which is to be noted, that the 4 applicant does not dispute signatures on the cheques and according to him blank cheques were given. By now, its well settled that if a person delivers a blank cheque duly signed, he takes responsibility and as contemplated under the Negotiable Instruments Act, an inchoate instrument is delivered to the other party, who has an authority to fill in the body of the cheque to make it as full instrument. 9. Since, the signatures on the cheques are admitted by the applicant, all other contentions as regard forgery and other things cannot be raised. It was argued by learned Advocate for the applicant that every time when the transaction is entered into, payment is made and the transaction is squared off. If, this was the practice followed by the parties, there was no reason for the applicant to deliver the blank cheques to non applicant. Hence, this argument cannot be accepted. 10. Assuming for a moment that between the applicant and non applicant an understanding came to be arrived at by which the applicant was required to deliver a cheque by way of security in normal course one cheque would have been sufficient being a blank cheque duly signed by the applicant. There was no reason for the applicant to deliver five blank cheques duly 5 signed at one point of time, which is not explained and that itself goes to show that the case of the applicant that, the cheques were given by way of security, becomes improbable. 11. In such circumstances, the defence put up by the applicant that cheques were delivered by way of security has not been made out. Both the courts have taken appropriate view of the matter and there is concurrent finding as regards the fact about delivery of the cheques, relations between the parties etc. As the applicant has failed to discharge burden cast on him, the impugned judgments delivered by learned trial Judge as well as learned Assistant Sessions Judge will have to be upheld. No interference is required in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. No case is made out for that. Hence, the order. The application is dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE kahale