V.M. ABOOBACKER SIDDIQUE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE legality and propriety of conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are under challenge in this revision brought by the accused in C.C. 648/2008 of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pattambi. A cheque issued by the revision petitioner in favour of the second respondent for Rs. 1,25,672/ - in discharge of a debt incurred in a loan transaction was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds. When he failed to make payment on demand the second respondent initiated prosecution in the trial court.

(2.) THE revision petitioner entered appearance and pleaded not guilty to the accusations. The complainant examined its Secretary as PW1 and marked Exts. P1 to P12. The accused (revision petitioner) did not adduce any oral evidence in defence. However Ext. D1 proving payment of Rs. 25,000/ - was marked during trial. On an appreciation of the evidence adduced by the complainant the trial court found the revision petitioner guilty. On conviction he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,672/ -.

(3.) ON hearing the learned Counsel, for the revision petitioner and on a perusal of the case records I find no reason or scope to admit the revision to files. PW1 examined on behalf of the complainant society has given evidence on facts proving the debt incurred by the revision petitioner and also proving execution of the Ext. P1 cheque in discharge of that debt. The case of the complainant on facts is further proved by the Ext. P8 loan application submitted by the revision petitioner, the Ext. P9 agreement, the Ext. P10 promissory note and also the Ext. P11 receipt issued by the revision petitioner. That the Ext. P1 cheque was bounced due to insufficiency of funds is further proved by the Exts. P2 to P4 documents. The revision petitioner has no case that he had sufficient funds in his account to honour the cheque, or that it was bounced on some other ground. The revision petitioner has also no explanation why he did not send reply to the Ext. P5 statutory notice caused by the complainant in time. The complaint was also filed in time by the complainant. The debt incurred by the revision petitioner, and also execution of the cheque in question in discharge of that liability stands well proved by evidence, and 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.