BEERANKUTTY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this revision petition is against the conviction and sentence imposed against the revision petitioner under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

(2.) The case of the complainant is that, the accused/revision petitioner borrowed a sum of 40,000/- and towards the discharge of the said liability, the accused issued Ext.P1 cheque dated 30.1.2007 for a sum of ' 40,000/-, 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 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. With the said allegation, the complainant approached the Judl. First Class Magistrate Court- III, Kozhikode, by filing a formal complaint, upon which cognizance was taken under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and instituted S.T.No.883/07. During the trial of the case, PW1, the complainant himself was examined from the side of the complainant and Exts.P1 to P4 were marked. From the side of the defence, the accused himself was mounted to the box and gave evidence as DW1 and produced Ext.D1 marriage certificate. 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 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. On such conviction, the trial court sentenced the revision petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 month and also directed the revision petitioner to pay a sum of ' 40,000/- to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C., failing which the revision petitioner was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 month.

(3.) Though an appeal was filed, at the instance of the revision petitioner/accused, by judgment dated 14.10.2010 in Crl.A.34/10, the Court of Sessions Judge, Kozhikode Division, allowed the appeal only in part and thus while confirming the conviction, the sentence imposed against the accused by the trial court is modified and reduced the same to till rising of the court and also sentenced him to pay a fine of ' 40,000/- instead of compensation under Section 357(1) of Cr.P.C. It is the above conviction and sentence challenged in this revision petition.