P K SHAJI Vs. JITHU JOSE AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the accused in S. T. No. 3025/2010 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Vaikom. The case was registered as per the complaint of the 1st respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in which, the petitioner stated thus: The petitioner herein borrowed an amount of Rs. 11,50,000/- from the 1st respondent-complainant, towards discharge of which liability, two cheques were issued by him, which, on presentation for encashment, were returned dishonoured by the Bank for insufficiency of funds. The 1st respondent issued a statutory notice demanding the amount, despite which also, the petitioner did not pay the amount covered by the cheques. Thus, the petitioner committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner appeared before the Magistrate on receiving summons and entered a plea of not guilty on 1.10.2010. While further proceedings were going on, on the basis of the said plea of guilty, the petitioner filed an application dated 31.1.2011, which reads thus;

(2.) The petitioner seeks to condone the delay of 3 months 17 days in filing the appeal, by the application. The petitioner was the accused in S. T. No. 3025/10 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Vaikom. The 1st respondent in the petition had instituted the case alleging that the petitioner had borrowed Rs. 11,50,000/- from him and two cheques were issued in discharge of the liability but the cheques which were sent for collection were dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds in his account and he has failed to pay the amount even though a notice has been issued to him asking him to pay the amount and thus he has committed offence under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

(3.) The trial court convicted the accused and sentenced him to pay fine Rs. 10,00,000/- with a default clause of simple imprisonment for six months on the basis of admission of guilt by the petitioner. The appeal is filed by challenging this conviction and sentence made by the trial court.