ISSAC THOMAS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner is the accused in S.T. No. 482/2007 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kottayam. The second respondent herein prosecuted the revision petitioner alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act with an allegation that in discharge of a legally enforceable debt, the revision petitioner issued a cheque for Rs. 75,000/ - dated 24.12.2006 drawn on Canara Bank, Mallappally branch and that when the cheque was sent for collection it was dishonoured with the endorsement 'insufficient funds' and that despite the request to discharge the liability, no payment was made.

(2.) RESPONDENT to the process, the revision petitioner entered appearance and pleaded not guilty. When particulars of the allegations were read over explained, he pleaded not guilty. Hence he was sent for trial. On the side of the prosecution the second respondent was examined as PW -1 and Exts. P1 to P6 were marked. When the revision petitioner was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. he took a defence that he didn't borrow from a second respondent and there was no liability to be discharged and that the cheque in dispute is the one which was lost from his possession sometime back while on journey and that there is no consideration and that the second respondent is not known to him and that the matter was reported to the Bank. On the side of the revision petitioner the Manager of the Canara Bank, Mallappally branch was examined as DW -1 and Ext. D -1, the ledger extract of the account was marked. Through DW -1, the 2nd respondent also proved Exts. P -7 and P -8.

(3.) THE learned Magistrate on appraisal of the evidence arrived at a conclusion of guilty. Consequently, the revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 80,000/ - with a default clause to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month. In Crl. A. No. 291/2008, the conviction was confirmed, but the substantive sentence was reduced to imprisonment till rising of the Court with a fine of Rs. 75,000/ -. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence as modified in appeal, this revision petition was filed.