SYLVY GEORGE Vs. A.F. JOHN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CONVICTION and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are under challenge in this revision, brought by the accused in C.C. No. 302 of 2006 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court II, Palakkad. A cheque for Rs. 1,50,000/ - issued by her in favour of the complainant (first respondent) was dishonored due to insufficiency of funds, and when the revision petitioner failed to make payment as demanded in the statutory notice the first respondent brought complaint before the trial court.

(2.) THE revision petitioner entered appearance in the trial court, pleaded not guilty to the accusation, and claimed to be tried. The complainant examined himself as PW1 and also marked Exts. P1 to P5 during trial. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied the circumstances and maintained a defence that the cheque in question was handed over as security in a transaction of borrowal made by the husband of the accused. To probabilise such a case the accused examined herself as DW1 with permission under Section 315 Cr.P.C., and also examined two other witnesses. Exts. D1 to D5 were also marked on her side. On an appreciation of the evidence adduced on both sides the learned Magistrate found the revision petitioner guilty. On conviction she was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months, and was also directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000, to the complainant under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C.

(3.) ON hearing both sides on admission, and on a perusal of the case records I find no reason or ground to admit this Crl. R.P. No. 1125 OF 2014 revision to files. The complainant has given definite and consistent evidence proving the transaction of borrowal in which the revision petitioner incurred a debt of Rs. 1,50,000/ -, and also proving the execution of the Ext. P1 cheque. The complainant denied the suggestion made by the defence that the revision petitioner had no transaction with him, and that the cheque was in fact handed over as security in a transaction of borrowal made by the husband of the accused. Though the accused examined herself and also examined two other witnesses, she could not probabilise such a case to the satisfaction of the court. The evidence on facts given by the complainant stands not discredited, and the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act stands not rebutted by any material. The complainant is definite that the Ext. P1 cheque was bounced due to insufficiency of funds. This is further proved by the Exts. P2 and P3 documents. The revision petitioner has no case that she had funds in her account to honour the cheque, or that it was bounced on some other ground. The Ext. P4 statutory notice was sent by the complainant in time and the complaint was also filed well within time. Of course the revision petitioner had sent the Ext. P5 reply, but the defence pleaded by her stands not proved. She has no case that she had made payment of the cheque amount as demanded in the statutory notice. I find that the complainant has well proved the case on facts, including the transaction of borrowal, the execution of the Ext. P1 cheque and also bouncing of the cheque due to insufficiency of funds. The complainant has also proved compliance of the statutory requirements in initiating prosecution. I find no illegality or irregularity or impropriety in the conviction made by the courts below.