VALSALA KUMARI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A cheque for 1,00,000/ - issued by the revision petitioner herein in favour of the 2nd respondent, in discharge of the amount borrowed by him on 8.3.2004, was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds, and in spite of statutory notice, the revision petitioner did not make payment of the cheque amount. Alleging the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the 2nd respondent filed a complaint before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -III, Kottarakara as C.C. No. 190 of 2007.

(2.) THE revision petitioner pleaded not guilty during trial. However, he was found guilty by the trial court under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. During trial, the complainant examined himself as PW1, and also marked Exts. P1 to P6. No evidence was adduced in defence by the revision petitioner. On conviction, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days and was also directed to pay a compensation of 1 lakh.

(3.) ON hearing both sides, and on a perusal of the case records, I find no illegality or irregularity or impropriety in the conviction and sentence against the revision petitioner. The complainant examined as PW1 has given acceptable and definite evidence proving the alleged borrowal of amount by the revision petitioner, and also proving the execution of Ext. P1 cheque in discharge of the said debt. His evidence and Ext. P2 also will show that the cheque was bounced due to insufficiency of funds. The complainant caused Ext. P4 statutory notice in time and when the revision petitioner failed to make payment of the cheque amount, he brought complaint in time. I find that the complainant has well proved the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act with all the necessary ingredients and elements, and he has also proved compliance of the statutory requirements in initiating prosecution. Thus, there is no scope for any sort of interference in the conviction. The sentence imposed by the court below is the minimum possible under the law, and direction to pay compensation was made with a view to do substantial justice to the complainant. This also does not require any interference. Thus, I find that this revision is liable to be dismissed in limine.