THOTTATHIL LAKSHMANAN Vs. KUNDATHIL SOBHANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is at the instance of the accused in C.C. No.617 of 2000 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Kuthuparamba, assailing the judgment in Crl. Appeal No.141 of 2004 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-III), Thalassery, which upheld his conviction under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred as 'the NI Act'), though the sentence was modified and reduced.

(2.) C.C. No. 617 of 2000 was based on a complaint filed by the 1st respondent herein, against the revision petitioner, alleging an offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the NI Act. The case of the 1st respondent/complainant was that, there was financial transaction between herself and the revision petitioner regarding purchase of KL-13A-2898 bus, owned by the revision petitioner and Ext.D1 agreement dtd. 16/9/1999 will prove that transaction. But, the revision petitioner could not transfer the bus into her name, as agreed. So, they executed Ext.P7 agreement on 26/10/1999, whereby, the revision petitioner agreed to repay Rs.84,000.00 received by him, from the 1st respondent/complainant, along with 6% interest, amounting to Rs.90,000.00 in total. Out of this amount, Rs.40,000.00 was paid by the revision petitioner on 26/10/1999 itself, and for the balance Rs.50,000.00, he issued cheque bearing No. 900184 dtd. 30/11/1999 drawn on Syndicate Bank, Mambaram Branch, and another cheque for Rs.15,000.00 bearing No. 900185 drawn on the same bank, towards interest and cost.

(3.) After receiving back those two cheques from the 1st respondent/complainant, the revision petitioner issued a new cheque i.e. Ext.P1 cheque to her, for an amount of Rs.61,000.00 on 11/3/2000. When that cheque was presented for collection, it was dishonoured for the reason, 'insufficient funds'. So, she sent Ext.P3 statutory notice to the revision petitioner, which was received by him, as seen from Ext.P5 acknowledgment card. The revision petitioner sent Ext.P6 reply stating that, the understanding was to pay Rs.61,000.00 in cash on 11/3/2000, and till such payment the cheque was given only as a security. Since the amount was not paid within the statutory period, the 1st respondent/complainant preferred the complaint under Sec. 138 of the NI Act, against the revision petitioner. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence, and issued summons to the revision petitioner.