P A SHAMSUDHEEN Vs. M A YUSUF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused in a prosecution for an offence u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is the revision petitioner, as he is aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence imposed by the courts below.

(2.) The case of the complainant is that the accused/revision petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.76,500/- from the complainant and towards the discharge of the debt due to the complainant, he issued two cheques dated 4.12.2002 for a sum of Rs.47,500/- and another one dated 14.3.2003 for an amount of Rs.29,000/-, which were when presented for encashment dishonoured, as there was no sufficient fund in the account maintained by the accused and the cheque amount was not repaid inspite of a formal demand notice and thus the revision petitioner has committed the offence punishable u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. With the said allegation, the complainant approached the Judl. First Class Magistrate Court-Kodungallur, by filing a formal complaint, upon which cognizance was taken u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and instituted C.C.No.648/03. During the trial of the case, the complainant himself was mounted to the box and gave evidence as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P13 were marked, from the side of the complainant. From the side of the defence, Dws.1 and 2 were examined and Ext.D1 was produced and marked. On the basis of the available materials and evidence on record, the trial court has found that the cheque in question was issued by the revision petitioner/ accused for the purpose of discharging his debt due to the complainant. Thus accordingly the court found that, the complainant has established the case against the accused/ revision petitioner and consequently found that the accused is guilty and thus convicted him u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. On such conviction, the trial court sentenced the revision petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment till the rising of the court and also directed to pay a compensation of Rs.76,500/- with 12 % interest from 14.3.2003 till the date of realisation to the complainant and the default sentence was fixed as 6 months simple imprisonment.

(3.) Though an appeal was filed, at the instance of the revision petitioner/accused, by judgment dated 31.5.2006 in Crl.A.74/05, the Court of Sessions Judge, Thrissur, allowed the appeal only in part and the only modification effected by the appellate court is that it reduced the rate of interest from 12 % to 6 %. It is the above conviction and sentence challenged in this revision petition.