V VELAYUDHAN Vs. PURUSHOTHAMAN

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.8,29,500/- and towards the discharge of the said liability, the accused issued a cheque dated 30.4.2005 for a sum of Rs.8,29,500/-, which 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 initially approached the Judl. First Class Magistrate Court-II, Trivandrum, by filing a formal complaint, upon which cognizance was taken u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and instituted S.T.No.1558/04 and subsequently the case was transferred to the Judicial First Class Magistrate-VIII, Trivandrum, wherein the case is renumbered as S.T.No.629/06. During the trial of the case, PW1, the complainant himself was examined from the side of the complainant and Exts.P1 to P9 were marked. From the side of the defence, though no witness was examined, 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 for 1 year and also directed the revision petitioner to pay a fine of Rs.8,29,500/-, failing which the revision petitioner was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 months. It is also ordered that in case the fine amount is realised, the same shall be given to the complainant as compensation u/s.357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C.

(3.) AS this court is not inclined to interfere with the conviction recorded by the courts below, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that, the revision petitioner is now at the age of 77 years and he is a sick person also. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that, the revision petitioner seeks some time to pay the compensation amount, since huge amounts are yet to be reached from various sources, including by way of compensation connected with land acquisition proceedings. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, I am of the view that the said submission can be considered positively but subject to other relevant facts and circumstances involved in the case.