C.K. RAJAMMA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioners herein are the two accused in S.T.No.2324/2009 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -II, (Mobile), Kottayam. A cheque jointly issued by them for 1,00,000/ - in their capacity as the President and the Secretary of a Co -operative Society, was bounced due to insufficiency of funds. On the allegation that inspite of statutory notice the revision petitioners did not make payment of the cheque amount, the payee Vasu filed a complaint before the trial court. The revision petitioners appeared in the trial court, pleaded not guilty, and claimed to be tried. During trial two witnesses were examined on the side of the complainant, and Exts.P1 to P10 were marked. No evidence in defence was adduced by the revision petitioners, even though they denied the incriminating circumstances when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. On an appreciation of the evidence adduced by the complainant, the trial court found the revision petitioners guilty under Section 138 of N.I Act. On conviction thereunder they were sentenced to undergo imprisonment till rising of the court, and was also directed to pay a compensation of 1,00,000/ - to the complainant under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the conviction and sentence the revision petitioners approached the Court of Session, Kottayam with Crl.A No.17/2011. In appeal the learned Addl. Session Judge IV, Kottayam concurred with the findings of the trial court, and accordingly dismissed the appeal by judgment dated 23.10.2013. Now the revision petitioners are before this Court, challenging the legality and propriety of the conviction and sentence in revision.

(3.) THE revision petitioners have in fact practically admitted the execution of Ext.P1 cheque, and it stands proved that it was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds. The revision petitioners have no explanation, how the said cheque came in the hands of the complainant, if not issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt, or how it happened to be dishonoured, if not due to insufficiency of funds. The transaction in which the amount was due stands well proved by the evidence of the witnesses examined by the complainant, and the execution of cheque also stands well proved.