P A SHIYALA Vs. D SREENIVASAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REVISION petitioner, the accused in C.C.132/1998 On the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code. Petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence before Sessions court, Thrissur in Crl.A.261/2002. Learned Sessions Judge on re-appreciation of evidence, confirmed the conviction and modified the sentence to simple imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs.1,60,000/- with a direction to pay the same on realisation to first respondent as compensation. REVISION is filed challenging the conviction and sentence.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner and first respondent were heard.

(3.) CASE of the first respondent is that petitioner borrowed Rs.80,000/- on 1/5/1996 and at that time petitioner executed a demand promissory note as well as a receipt for that amount. It is his case that when the amount was demanded, petitioner issued Ext.P1 cheque and induced first respondent to part with promissory note and receipt which were given earlier, making him believe that the cheque was issued in the account maintained by him. Later when it was dishonoured only, first respondent came to know that the cheque was drawn in the account maintained by the first respondent. Though argument of the learned counsel is that when the amount was borrowed on 1/5/1996 there was no dishonest intention as born out from the evidence and evidence establish that when the amount was borrowed, petitioner executed demand promissory note and also handed over the receipt for the same. Evidence show that when the cheque was issued by the petitioner, first respondent returned the promissory note as well receipt. Therefore, when cheque was accepted by the petitioner, he was induced to believe that the cheque was being issued in the account maintained by the first respondent. On that inducement first respondent parted with the demand promissory note as well as receipt by which he could have realised the amount paid on 1/5/1996. Evidence establish that due to the inducement made on 20/5/1996, first respondent was persuaded to accept the cheque by parting with the promissory note and it was handed over earlier establish that petitioner had a dishonest intention to cheat. In such circumstances, conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code is perfectly legal and warrants no interference.