NEELAKANTAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner/accused is the appellant in Crl.Appeal No.69/2005 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge,Fast Track Court (Adhoc), No.IV, Thiruvananthapuram, which arose from CC No.186/2002 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-1, Nedumangad. By judgment dated 01.01.2005 , the revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay a compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-, in default of payment of compensation to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The appeal was dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court.

(2.) The revision petitioner suffered concurrent conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act in a proceeding under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. The case of the complainant is that, the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- from him on 25.04.2001 for a legally enforceable debt and issued Ext.P1 cheque dated 25.05.2001 to the complainant. When the cheque was presented for encashment, the same was returned on the ground of 'funds insufficient'. The complainant issued advocate notice dated 06.10.2001 requiring the accused to pay the amount covered under the cheque within the statutory time. The amount was not paid as requested and hence, the complaint was filed before the trial court.

(3.) During the trial of the case, PW1 was examined and marked Exts.P1 to P6 on the side of the complainant. The defence version is that the accused purchased a second hand Omnibus bearing registration No.KL 01 9477 in the year 1995. The sale consideration for purchase of the vehicle was mobilised by entering into a hire purchase agreement with Chennai based financing company to a tune of Rs.1,50,000/-. Accordingly, two blank cheque leaves were given as security to the agent of the finance company. Ext.P1 as stated to be one of such cheques, the entire amount due under the hire purchase agreement was paid and the vehicle was sold. It is contended that the complainant was a proxy of the agent of the aforesaid financing company. To prove the case of the accused, the accused got himself examined as DW1 and the guarantor to the hire purchase agreement was examined as DW2. The authorised agent of the finance company was examined as DW3. Exts. D1 to D8 were produced to show that the accused had financial transaction with PW1.