RAMESH A.C Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN amount of 30,000/ - was borrowed by the revision petitioner herein from the second respondent in 2009. When the second respondent made demand the revision petitioner issued a cheque for 30,000/ - in discharge of the said debt. When the second respondent presented the cheque for collection it was bounced due to insufficiency of funds and when the revision petitioner failed to make payment on demand the second respondent initiated prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court II, Sulthanbathery. The revision petitioner entered appearance in the trial court, and pleaded not guilty to the accusations. The complainant examined himself as PW1 during trial, and marked Exts. P1 to P4. Though the revision petitioner made denial of the liability in defence, he did not adduce any evidence in defence. Believing the evidence given by the complainant, the trial court found him guilty. On conviction he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months, and was also directed to pay a compensation of 35,000/ - under Section 357 (3) Cr.P.C.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the conviction and sentence, the revision petitioner approached the court of Session, Wayanad with Crl. Appeal 02/2011. In appeal the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Adhoc II confirmed the conviction and sentence, and accordingly dismissed the appeal. Now, in this revision, legality and propriety of the conviction and sentence is challenged by the accused.

(3.) THE complainant has given definite evidence proving the alleged transaction of borrowal, and also proving execution of the Ext P1 cheque by the revision petitioner in discharge of that debt. This evidence stands not discredited. The revision petitioner did not adduce any evidence in defence to disprove the case of the complainant, or to rebut the presumption available to him under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Ext. P2 document shows that the cheque was bounced due to insufficiency of funds. The revision petitioner has no case otherwise that he had sufficient funds in his account, or that his cheque was bounced on some other ground. Ext. P3 statutory notice was sent in time by the complainant, but the revision petitioner managed to have it returned unclaimed. Complaint was filed in time by the complainant before the court below. I find that the complainant has well proved the case on facts, including compliance of the statutory requirements. I find no illegality or irregularity for interference in revision.