L.LATHA Vs. MANOJKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner calls in question the correctness and legality of the judgment of the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc) Fast Track Court-II, Pathanamthitta (Appellate Court) in Crl.Appeal No.8/2010, confirming the judgment of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Thiruvalla (Trial Court) in S.T.No.1719/2005, convicting and sentencing the revision petitioner for the offence under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for brevity, "N.I.Act"). The revision petitioner was the accused and the 1st respondent was the complainant before the Trial Court.

(2.) The first respondent had filed the complaint before the Trial Court alleging that the revision petitioner had borrowed an amount of Rs.58,000.00 from him and in discharge of the said liability, the revision petitioner had issued Ext.P1 cheque in his favour. However, the cheque, on presentation to the bank for collection, was dishonoured by Ext.P2 memorandum due to 'insufficient funds' in the bank account. Although the first respondent had issued Ext P4 lawyer notice, which was received by the revision petitioner, she failed to pay the demanded amount. Hence, the revision petitioner had committed the offence under Sec. 138 of the N.I.Act.

(3.) The revision petitioner pleaded not guilty to the substance of accusation read over to her. In the Trial, the first respondent was examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P6 were marked in evidence. The revision petitioner denied the incriminating questions put to her in the questioning under Sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( in short, Cr.P.C'). The revision petitioner did not let in any defence evidence.