FAKRUDHIN V.P. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all the above revision petitions, the revision petitioner and the respondents are one and the same and the impugned judgments, which confirmed the conviction and the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner in prosecutions under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, (for short 'the NI Act') are under challenge. Since a common question of law is involved in all these revision petitions and the parties are the same, these revision petitions were heard jointly and disposed of in a common order as under.

(2.) The revision petitioner is the second accused in CC Nos. 283/97, 281/97 and 282/97 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court - II, Kochi, filed by the 2nd respondent herein. The first accused is a firm and the second accused is its Managing Partner. The facts of all these cases are also similar. The complainant is a shipping company and the first accused company is a customer. The complainant's case in all the cases can be summarised as follows: (The parties are referred to as in the complaint.) Towards freight charges due from the first accused, the first accused firm had issued three cheques for the amounts of Rs.1,87,782/-, Rs.1,87,467/- and Rs.1,87,527/- dated 03/10/1996, 24/10/1996 and 08/11/1996 respectively drawn on the State Bank of Travancore, Thoppumpady Branch, to the complainant. When these cheques were presented for encashment, they were dishonoured and returned due to 'insufficiency of funds'. Though the complainant had caused to issue a lawyer's notice to the second accused requiring the payment of the cheque amounts, he did not pay the cheque amounts; nor did he send a reply notice denying the liability. Thus, the accused has committed the offence punishable under S.138 of the NI Act in each complaint. Therefore, the complainant filed the above complaints separately in respect of each cheque alleging the said offence.

(3.) The accused admitted the issuance of the cheques as well as the signatures in all the cheques. But, according to the accused, the cheques were issued as security and thereby the cheques lack consideration. In short, the defence contention is that the cheques were issued not in discharge of a legally enforceable (sic: enforcible) debt or liability.