BASHEER Vs. MAHASAKTHI ENTERPRISES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against concurrent verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence in a prosecution under S.138 of the N.I. Act.

(2.) The cheque is for an amount of Rs.50,000/-. Admittedly, there were transactions between the complainant and the accused regarding supply of ceramic tiles. Admittedly, there was an outstanding liability in favour of the complainant. Admittedly, the cheque in question -- Ext. P 1 is drawn on a cheque leaf issued by the petitioner's bank to him to operate his account. The cheque was dishonoured on the ground of insufficiency of funds. Notice of demand was duly received and acknowledged. It did not evoke any response. As the payment was not made within the time stipulated by law, the complainant came to Court with the complaint under S.138 of the N.I.Act.

(3.) The accused denied the offence alleged against him and thereupon, PWs. 1 and 2 were examined on the side of the complainant and Exts. P 1 to P6 were marked. The accused, who did not respond to the notice of demand threatening prosecution, did in the course of trial attempt to take up a stand that the signature in the cheque is not his. According to him, he was ill and was hospitalised. A relative of his one Jiyas was managing his business during his absence. The said Jiyas, it was alleged, had stolen a cheque leaf and had issued Ext. P 1 imitating his signature. The accused wanted the cheque to be sent to the expert. PW 1, the expert examined the cheque and rendered his opinion in Ext. D 1 report that the signature appearing in the cheque is not that of the accused. The accused examined the expert as DW 1 and himself as DW 2. Ext. D 1 was marked.