RAJU M.THOMAS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 23.11.2006 rendered by the Additional Sessions Court-I, Mavelikkara, in Crl.Appeal No.114 of 2006, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as, ' NI Act ') rendered by the trial court to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and also to pay a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months more under Section 138 of the NI Act.

(2.) The revision petitioner was the accused in CC No.483 of 2004 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Chengannur and the appellant in Crl.Appeal No.114 of 2006 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-I, Mavelikkara. The 1st respondent filed a complaint before the trial court alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act against the accused. Upon consideration of the complaint, the learned magistrate is prima facie satisfied that the case is made out against the accused. Hence, the learned magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act and the case was taken on file as CC No. 483 of 2004. Parties are hereinafter referred to as the 'complainant' and 'accused' according to their status in the court below unless otherwise stated.

(3.) It is the case of the complainant that the accused issued two cheques bearing Nos. 042385 and 042386 dated 27.04.2004 for Rs.1,00,000/- each drawn on the account maintained by the accused with the Union of India, Chengannur Branch in favour of the complainant. The complainant presented the cheques for encashment through the Corporation Bank, Pathanamthitta Branch, but, the cheques were dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. Statutory notice was issued on 21.05.2004 to the accused calling upon him to pay the amount. The accused received the notice. However, he had neither sent a reply nor paid the amount covered under the cheques. Hence, the complaint.