T.J. JOY Vs. P.V. KURIAKOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE 1st respondent herein prosecuted the revision petitioner before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam, in C.C. No. 724/1999, accusing offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (N.I. Act) with a plea that the revision petitioner owed a sum of Rs. 50,000/ - and in discharge of the same Ext. P1 cheque was issued and that when presented for collection it was returned dishonoured for insufficient funds and despite the acknowledgment of the notice demanding discharge the liability was not discharged. The revision petitioner entered appearance before the trial court in response to the process issued and pleaded not guilty. Therefore, he was sent for trial. The 1st respondent was examined as PW1. Exts. P1 to P4 were marked After closing the evidence for the prosecution, when questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the revision petitioner denied the incriminating circumstances and advanced the plea of total innocence. The trial court, on appraisal of the evidence, arrived at a conclusion of guilty. Consequently, the revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 80,000/ -. Rs. 75,000/ -, out of the fine amount, if realised, was ordered to be paid to the 1st respondent as compensation.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the above conviction and sentence, he preferred Crl. A. No. 737/2004 before the Sessions Judge, Ernakulam. The 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, to whom the appeal was made over, by the impugned judgment dated 7.1.2005, while confirming the conviction, reduced the sentence to a fine of Rs. 60,000/ - which was ordered to be paid to the 1st respondent as compensation. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence as modified in appeal, this Revision Petition is preferred.

(3.) NONE represented the revision petitioner. I have heard Adv. Sri. Varghese Kuriakose, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. Perused the judgments of the courts below. Having heard I find that the 1st respondent as PW1 had succeeded to establish the liability, issuance of Ext. P1 cheque, dishonour of the same for insufficient funds, issuance of notice and failure to discharge the liability. Though PW1 was subjected to searching cross examination, no material was disclosed to disbelieve PW1. There is no evidence adduced by the revision petitioner to rebut the legal presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act which support the evidence of PW1. It is also pertinent to note that the revision petitioner remained silent after acknowledging the notice demanding discharge. Had the revision petitioner any defence he would have retorted to the notice. Therefore, the silence of the revision petitioner after acknowledging the notice demanding discharge also speaks volumes. I find no error, illegality or impropriety committed by the courts below so as to be rectified in exercise of the revisional powers. Conviction is based upon cogent evidence. Sentence is very moderate. The Revision Petition is devoid of merits. In the result, this Revision Petition is dismissed. The trial court shall see the execution of sentence and report compliance.