HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1478 of 2010 DATE: 09.09.2010 Between: M.M. Pushpa Kumari …… Petitioner And: A. Shobha Rani and another …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1478 of 2010 ORDER : 1. This revision is sought to be filed by the accused who is evading the process of law by absconding and without surrendering before the lower courts inspite of issue of non-bailable warrant for her arrest for undergoing the imprisonment awarded by both the courts below. 2. Subject-matter of this revision petition is an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short, the Act). Both the courts below found that the petitioner/accused is guilty of the said offence and imposed sentence of imprisonment of four months apart from fine of Rs.2,000/-. It is stated that fine amount is paid by the petitioner. 3. Even according to the petitioner’s counsel, both the ladies who are the complainant and the accused are neighbours. It is alleged that the accused on 05.08.2007 borrowed Rs.68,000/- from the complainant promising to repay the same in three months and issued post dated cheque drawn on State Bank of India, Battala Bazaar, Warangal for the said amount. When the said cheque was presented by the complainant for collection after the date mentioned on the cheque, it was dishonoured for insufficient funds. Thereupon, the complainant got issued notice dated 12.12.2007 calling upon the accused to pay dishonoured cheque amount; and the accused after receiving the same on 17.12.2007, failed to pay the dishonoured cheque amount nor gave any reply to that notice. During trial before the Magistrate, the complainant examined herself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-5 on her behalf; and the accused examined herself as D.W.1. 4. The 1st respondent/complainant as P.W.1 deposed to the above facts stated in her complaint and marked the documents. Ex.P-1 is the dishonoured cheque for Rs.68,000/- dated 05.11.2007. Ex.P-2 is the cheque return memo dated 15.11.2007. Ex.P-3 is pay-in slip dated 06.11.2007 along with which the complainant presented the cheque for encashment. The cheque was returned on the ground of insufficient funds. Thereupon, the complainant got issued Ex.P-4 notice to the accused who received the same as per Ex.P-5 postal acknowledgement. The accused as D.W.1 denied total facts as well as documents. She denied having borrowed Rs.68,000/- from the complainant, having given Ex.P-1 cheque for the said amount with post date. According to D.W.1, she lost the cheque or that the cheque was stolen from her and it was filled up and presented for encashment with forged signature. She denies signature on Ex.P-1 cheque also. At this stage, it may be noted that the banker of the accused in Ex.P-2 cheque return memo did not return the cheque on the ground of signature not tallying. The cheque was returned on the ground of insufficiency of funds. Even after giving notice, the accused did not give reply to that notice and did not deny the complainant’s case. For the first time, the accused as D.W.1 denied each and every fact alleged by the complainant. 5. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the lower courts failed to notice that because of denial of the complainant’s allegations by D.W.1 in her evidence, presumption under Section 139 of the Act stood un-rebutted. Presumption under Section 139 of the Act is a rebuttable presumption. The complainant did not rely upon presumption under Section 139 or 118 of the Act; and on the other hand relied upon on evidence of P.W.1 and circumstances of the case which lead to the inevitable inference that the complainant’s case is true. D.W.1 admits that Ex.P-1 cheque leaf is from her cheque book. D.W.1 admits that she did not give any report to the police about loss or theft of Ex.P-1 cheque from her house. She did not even give reply to Ex.P-4 notice putting forward the said contentions. Further, banker of the accused did not dispute signature of the accused on Ex.P-1 cheque. Also, it is evidence of P.W.1 that when the accused asked her for lending Rs.70,000/-, she lent only Rs.68,000/- to her. P.W.1 in her cross-examination denied suggestions of the defence counsel. In these circumstances, this court is of the opinion that both the courts below rightly found that the complainant’s case is true and correct. I do not find any infirmity in the judgment dated 25.06.2010 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal in Criminal Appeal No.76 of 2008 confirming judgment dated 12.08.2008 of the V Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Warangal in C.C.No.189 of 2008. 6. In the result, the criminal revision petition is dismissed at the admission stage. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J September 9, 2010 Gk. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1478 of 2010 Date: 09.09.2010 Gk.