LALITHAKUMARI Vs. K. SIVAPRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is filed challenging the conviction entered and the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner in S.T. No. 403/2003 on the files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Pathanamthitta, which was confirmed in Crl. Appeal No. 285/2005 on the files of the Additional District & Sessions Judge (Ad -hoc), Fast Track Court -II, Pathanamthitta. The revision petitioner was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the N.I. Act') and he was found guilty of the said offence. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a sum of 1,60,000/ - to P.W. 1 as compensation under Sec. 357(3) of the Cr.P.C. The legality, propriety and correctness of the concurrent findings of conviction and sentence are under challenge in this revision petition.

(2.) THE 1st respondent's case is that in discharge of a legally enforceable debt/liability due to him, the revision petitioner had issued a cheque dated 4/8/2003 for an amount of Rs. 1,60,000/ - to the 1st respondent. When he presented the cheque for encashment, the same was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. Per contra, when questioned under Sec. 313 of the Cr.P.C., the accused denied the incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence against her and contended that Ext. 1 cheque was a blank signed cheque issued to one Sadasivan in the year 1998 as a security to avail a loan to one Gopinathan Nair and the said cheque was not returned in spite of discharge of that liability.

(3.) GOING by the judgments under challenge, it could be seen that though P.W. 1 was examined at length and into minute aspects, nothing brought out to discredit his testimony. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge re -appreciated the evidence of P.W. 1 coupled with Exts. P1 to P6 and concurred with the finding that the 1st respondent has discharged his initial burden of proving execution and issuance of the cheque. I do not find any reason to interfere with the said finding in the absence of any kind of perversity in the appreciation of evidence.