JAGADEESH BABU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner herein challenges the conviction and sentence against him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments act. On the complaint of the second respondent herein before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -II, Palakkad, alleging the said offence the revision petitioner faced prosecution in C.C. No. 727/2010. The case of the complainant is that three cheques issued by the revision petitioner in discharge of a total amount of Rs. 30,000/ - borrowed by him were dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds, and in spite of statutory notice, the revision petitioner failed to make payment of the cheque amount.

(2.) THE revision petitioner pleaded not guilty in the trial court, and when examined under section 313 Cr.P.C also he denied the incriminating circumstances. The complainant examined himself as PW1, and also marked Exts. P1 to P12 during trial. On an appreciation of the evidence, learned Magistrate found the revision petitioner guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. On conviction thereunder he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months and was also directed to pay the total cheque amount of Rs. 30,000/ - as compensation 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 or scope for admitting the revision to files. The complainant has given consistent evidence regarding the alleged borrowal of Rs. 30,000/ - by the revision petitioner and also regarding the issuance of the Ext. P1 to P3 cheques in discharge of the said amount. This evidence stands not in any manner discredited. The accused did not adduce any evidence to prove or probabilize his case set up in defence that 3 cheques leaves were in fact stolen by the complainant from his possession to file a complaint like this. All suggestions made to that effect were denied by the complainant. Exts. P4 to P6 documents will show that the three cheques in question were bounced due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner does not have a case otherwise that the cheques were bounced on some other ground or that he had insufficient funds in his account.