P SOMAN Vs. THOMAS PAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in the revision is with regard to the concurrent findings of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offence), Ernakulam and the Sessions Judge, Ernakulam with regard to the conviction entered against the petitioner in C.C. No. 89 of 1997 of the former court for the offence under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short the Act) and the modified sentence imposed by the Sessions Judge, Ernakulam, viz., imprisonment till rising of court and fine of Rs. 32,000/- (in default Simple Imprisonment for two months). The direction that Rs. 29,000/- out of the fine amount should go to the complainant is also challenged.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the conviction is unsustainable for the reason that the complainant failed to produce before the Court the memo of dishonour issued by the drawee bank or any other clinching evidence to show that Ext. P1 cheque was actually dishonoured for want of funds. Ext. P2 produced in the case is only an intimation from the complainants bank and that cannot be relied upon to show that the cheque bounced for want of funds.

(3.) I find absolutely no merit in the petitioners contentions. This is a case where Ext. P3 notice sent by the complainant alleging return of the cheque for want of funds was received by the petitioner as per Ext. P4. There was no reply from the petitioner stating either that the cheque was not dishonoured or that the dishonour was for some reason other than insufficiency of funds.