BALAKRISHNA PRABHU Vs. V.INDIRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Parties and the contentions raised in these criminal revision petitions are the same and therefore all these cases are heard and disposed of together.

(2.) Revision petitioner in these cases is the 2nd accused in C.C.Nos.650 of 2002, 647 of 2002, 649 of 2002 and 648 of 2002 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kochi, alleging offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short, "NI Act"). In C.C.No.650 of 2002, the complaint was filed by the 1st respondent on the basis of the allegation that accused 1 and 2 who were Managing Partner and Partner of M/s.Swathi Garments borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000.00 and to clear the liability, four cheques were issued for the said amount and on presentation of the cheques, they were dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. Though a lawyer notice was issued demanding payment, the accused failed to make the payment and hence the complaint alleging offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the NI Act was filed. In C.C.Nos.647 of 2002, 649 of 2002 and 648 of 2002 the allegation is the same.

(3.) Only the revision petitioner/2nd accused appeared before the trial court and the 1st accused was absconding. Therefore, the case against the 1st accused was split up and only the revision petitioner/2nd accused faced trial. All the cases were tried jointly and evidence was recorded in C.C. No. 647 of 2002. During the trial, the power of attorney holder of the complainant was examined as PW1 and marked Exts.P1 to P30. The trial court on appreciation of the evidence adduced, held the revision petitioner/2nd accused guilty of the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the NI Act and thus convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment and to pay compensation and in default, the accused was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the revision petitioner has filed criminal appeals as Crl.Appeal Nos.430 of 2005, 432 of 2005, 433 of 2005 and 429 of 2005 before the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc-I), Ernakulam. Appellate Court as per the common judgment dtd. 15/2/2006 confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence by reducing the substantive sentence till rising of the court and increasing the compensation amount, with a default sentence.