RAVIDAS Vs. ANANDKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner calls in question the correctness and legality of the judgment of the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court-III), Thiruvananthapuram (Appellate Court) in Crl.Appeal No.197/2008, confirming the judgment of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-IX, Thiruvananthapuram (Trial Court) in S.T.No.199/2005, 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 issued Ext P1 cheque in discharge of a legally enforceable debt. The cheque, on presentation to the bank for collection, was dishonoured by Ext.P2 memorandum due to 'insufficient funds' in the account of the revision petitioner. Although Ext P3 statutory lawyer notice was issued to the revision petitioner, he 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 him. In the Trial, the first respondent was examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P5 were marked in evidence. The revision petitioner denied the incriminating circumstances that were put against him 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.