M P PRASEED KUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused was prosecuted for the offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He was found guilty, accordingly he was convicted and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- (Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only), to the complainant under Section 357 (3) of Cr.PC, in default of the payment of which, he has to suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of three months. In appeal, the lower appellate court confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence as to remit Rs. 2,62,000/- (Two Lakhs Sixty Two Thousand Only) in default of payment of which the accused had to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. It was also directed that the fine amount of Rs. 2,62,000/- so realised shall be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357 (1) (b) of the Cr.PC.

(2.) The short case put forward by the complainant is that the accused was very familiar to him and they were thick friends. On 24.01.06, the accused borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- (Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) from the complainant and to discharge the said liability, he issued Exhibit P1 cheque, which on presentation, bounced. To the statutory notice issued to the accused, he replied, containing false statements. Since the amount was unpaid, a compliant was laid.

(3.) Trial court took cognizance on the complaint and issued summons to the accused. On the appearance of the accused, the particulars of the offence were read out to him, to which he pleaded not guilty. Therefore the complainant examined himself as PW1 and had Exhibits P1-P7 marked. After the close of the complainant's evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.PC. He denied the incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence and denied, having had any acquaintance with the complainant. According to him, he handed over two blank cheques to DW2, who was his family friend for giving as security to DW1 for borrowing some money from him and one of the said cheques has been manipulated to foist a case against him. In support of this case, he had Dws 1 & 2 examined and Exhibit D1 marked. The trial court on an evaluation of the evidence found that the complainant had been able to establish that the cheque was infact executed by the accused and issued to him and the defence set up by the accused is highly improbable and is also unconvincing, and accordingly, he was found guilty. Conviction and sentence as already mentioned followed. In appeal as noticed, the sentence was modified.