B. MADHU Vs. ANIL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner calls in question the correctness and legality of the judgments in Crl.A No. 684/2008 passed by the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Thiruvananthapuram (Appellate Court) and in S.T No. 161/2006 passed by the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Thiruvananthapuram (Trial Court), holding the revision petitioner guilty for the offence under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for brevity, "N.I.Act") and convicting and sentencing him for the said offence. The revision petitioner was the accused and the first respondent was the complainant before the Trial Court. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their status in the complaint.

(2.) The complaint was filed alleging that the accused had in discharge of a legally enforceable debt issued Ext P1 cheque dtd. 24/11/2007 in favour of the complainant for an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-. The cheque, on presentation to the bank for collection, got dishonoured by Ext.P2 memorandum due to 'insufficient funds' in the bank account of the accused. Despite issuing Ext P3 statutory lawyer notice to the accused, he failed to pay the demanded amount. Instead, the accused issued Ext P6 reply notice. Hence, the accused committed the above offence.

(3.) The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence. The accused denied the substance of accusations made against him. In the Trial, the complainant examined himself as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P6 were marked in evidence. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against him in the questioning under Sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, Code). The accused examined DWs 1 to 4, including himself as DW4, and marked Exts D1 to D3 in evidence.