SIVADAS Vs. PRABHAKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this revision petition by the accused is to the judgment dated November 30, 2002 in C.C.No.129 of 2001 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Ambalappuzha convicting him under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months by the learned Magistrate by judgment dated November 30, 2002, which was confirmed in appeal by the Sessions Court by judgment dated July 7, 2004. Now the accused has come up in revision challenging his conviction and sentence.

(2.) The case of the complainant/1st respondent, as testified by him as PW1 before the trial court and as stated in the complaint, was that the accused/revision petitioner borrowed Rs. 50,000/- from him and to discharge that liability the accused issued Ext.P1 cheque dated July 15, 2000 for the said amount drawn on the Aluva Branch of Federal Bank Ltd. which when presented for collection was returned dishonoured for want of sufficiency of funds in the account of the revision petitioner/accused in the bank and that in spite of Ext.P4 notice dated January 17, 2001, the accused/revision petitioner did not repay the amount. Therefore, the complainant filed the complaint before the trial court under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

(3.) The learned Magistrate, on receipt of the complaint, recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and took cognizance of the offence. The accused, on appearance before the trial court, pleaded not guilty to the charge under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P7 were marked on the side of the prosecution. When questioned under section 313 of Cr.P.C. by the learned Magistrate, the accused submitted that he had taken a loan from Federal Bank for which one Vasanthi Vijayasingh, who is none other than the aunt of the complainant, stood as surety, that as security, he issued 6 signed blank cheque leaves to said Vasanthi Vijaysingh and that the complainant misused one of those cheque leaves and created Ext.P1 cheque. Ext.D1 was marked on the side of the defence.