RAJU J VYLATTU Vs. P.V. ALEXANDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Will the failure to question an accused under Sec. 313 (1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure vitiate the entire proceedings?

(2.) The revision petitions are directed against the common judgment in Crl.Appeal Nos.685/2010 and 687/2010 of the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-II), Ernakulam (Appellate Court) confirming the common judgment in S.T Nos.1125/2005 and 1126/2005 of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Kochi, (Trial Court), whereby the courts have concurrently convicted and sentenced the revision petitioner for the offence under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ('Act', in short). As the parties are the same and the complaints and appeals were disposed of by common judgments, these revision petitions were consolidated, jointly heard, and are disposed of by this common order. For convenience, the parties are referred to as per their status before the Trial Court.

(3.) The complaints were filed against the accused, alleging him to have committed the offence under Sec. 138 of the Act. The complainant's common case is that, he is a businessman and is conducting an Oil Mill. The accused had borrowed Rs.10.00 lakh from him and in the discharge of the said liability had issued Exts.P2 and P6 cheques. On the cheques being presented to the bank for collection, they got dishonoured, by Exts.P3 and P7 memorandums, due to 'insufficient funds' in the accused's bank account. Even though the complainant had issued Exts.P5 and P9 statutory lawyer notices to the accused, the same were returned with an endorsement as 'unclaimed'. As the accused failed to pay the demanded amount, he committed the offence.