LAWS(KER)-2014-5-76

CYRIAC THOMAS @ KURIACHAN Vs. BABY MATHEW

Decided On May 22, 2014
Cyriac Thomas @ Kuriachan Appellant
V/S
BABY MATHEW Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CONVICTION and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are under challenge in this revision brought by the accused. Prosecution was initiated in the trial court by the 1st respondent herein. The case of the complainant is that a cheque for 1,75,000/ - issued by the revision petitioner in discharge of a debt incurred by him on 15.2.2010 was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds, and in spite of statutory notice, the revision petitioner did not make payment of the cheque amount.

(2.) THE revision petitioner pleaded not guilty in the trial court, and claimed to be tried. The complainant examined himself as PW1 and also marked Exts.P1 to P6 during trial. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C also, the revision petitioner maintained a defence of denial, and he did not adduce any evidence in defence. The learned Magistrate found him guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. On conviction thereunder, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment till rising of court and was also directed to make payment of a compensation of 1,75,000/ - to the complainant under Section 357 (3) of Cr.P.C.

(3.) ON hearing the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and on a perusal of the case records, I find no reason to admit this revision to files. The complainant has given definite evidence regarding the alleged borrowal of 1,75,000/ - by the revision petitioner, and also regarding the issuance of Ext.P1 cheque in discharge of the said liability. This evidence stands not in any manner discredited, and the revision petitioner has not adduced any evidence in defence to rebut the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Exts.P2 and P3 documents will show that Ext.P1 cheque was bounced due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the revision petitioner. He has no case that he had sufficient funds in his account to honour the cheque, or that the cheque was bounced on some other ground.