AJAYA GHOSH Vs. K.S. BABY SUDHAKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCUSED in S.T. No. 189/2007 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, No -IV, Kollam is the revision petitioner herein.

(2.) THE case was taken on file on the basis of a private complaint filed by the complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter called 'the Act').

(3.) WHEN the accused appeared before the court below, the particulars of offences were read over and explained to him and he pleaded not guilty. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant himself was examined as P.W. 1 and Exts. P1 to P6 were marked on his side. After closure of the complainant's evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and he denied all the incriminating circumstances brought against him in the complainant's evidence. He had further stated that he had borrowed an amount of Rs. 50,000/ - from the de facto complainant on 20.10.2000 and issued a cheque putting the year as 2001. Though he had paid the amount with interest, the same was not returned to him and he wanted exorbitant interest. In order to prove his case, the accused has filed Crl.M.P. No. 453/07 stating that the actual date of the cheque is 20.10.2001 but it was corrected as 20.10.2003. But, that application was dismissed. In order to prove the case of the complainant, D.W. 1 was examined. After considering the evidence on record, the court below found the revision petitioner guilty under Section 138 of the Act and convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment till rising of the court and also to pay the cheque amount Rs. 1,50,000/ - as fine in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. It is further ordered that if the fine amount is realized, the same be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Dissatisfied with the same, the revision petitioner filed Crl. Appeal No. 168/2008 before the Sessions Court, Kollam and the same was made over to Additional Sessions Court, (Adhoc) I, Kollam for disposal. Before the appellate court also, he filed Crl.M.P. 1849/2010 for sending the disputed cheque for expert opinion on the ground that there is an interlineation of '1' before the '2' shown in the month column of the cheque and that application was dismissed by the appellate court on the ground that the earlier application filed by him before the court below was dismissed and he had a different case before the lower court for sending Ext. P1 for expert opinion and the case forwarded by him is not tallying with the case set up by him for sending the cheque for expert opinion. After hearing both sides, the Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal by the impugned judgment confirming the order of conviction and sentence passed by the court below which is being challenged by the revision petitioner who is the accused before the court below before this court by filing this revision.