P.K.RAGHAVAN Vs. SANTHOSH THOMAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 7.2.2008, the revision petitioner herein agreed to sell his property to the first respondent herein and he received an amount of 3,00,000/ - in advance. Finding that performance of the agreeement is not possible the parties cancelled the said contract, and the revision petitioner agreed to return the advance amount of 3,00,000/ -. In discharge of the said laibility, he issued a cheque for 3,00,000/ - dated 7.8.2009 in favour of the first respondent, but the said cheque was bounced due to insufficiency of funds. When the revision petitioner failed to make payment on demand, the first respondent initiated prosecution against the revision petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court II, Pala.

(2.) THE revision petitioner entered appearance in the trial court and pleaded not guilty to the accusations. During trial, he maintained a defence that the real transaction is one of borrowal of 50,000/ -, that he has returned the entire amount borrowed, and that a cheque handed over by him as security in the said transaction was misused by the complainant to bring a prosecution. The complainant examined himself as PW1, and proved Exts. P1 to P7 documents. The revision petitioner did not adduce any evidence in defence to probabilize his case. Accepting the evidence of the complainant the trial court found him guilty. On conviction he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months, and was also directed to pay a compensation of

(3.) NOTICE on admission was given to the first respondent / complainant. On hearing the learned Counsel and on a perusal of the case records I find no ground or reason to admit the revision to files. I find that with some modification in sentence this revision can be disposed of, even without being admitted to files. The complainant has given definite and consistent evidence proving the alleged transaction of sale, and also proving the Ext. P7 agreement to which the revision petitioner is a party. The evidence given by the complainant stands not discredited. He is definite that the Ext. P1 cheque in question was issued by the revision petitioner in discharge of a liability of 3,00,000/ - incurred by him under the Ext. P7 sale agreement. The accused did not turn up to deny the Ext. P7 sale agreement to which he is a party. Exts. P2 and P3 documents will show that the cheque in question was bounced due to insufficiency of funds. The revision petitioner has no case otherwise that he had sufficient funds in his account or that the cheque was bounced on some other ground. Ext. P4 statutory notice was sent in time by the complainant, and the complaint was also filed well within time. There is no reason why the revision petitioner did not send reply to the statutory notice. I find that the complainant has well proved the case on facts, including the sale transaction in which the revision petitioner incurred the alleged debt, making of the Ext. P1 cheque, bouncing due to insufficiency of funds, and also failure of the revision petitioner to make payment on statutory demand. I find no irregularity or illegality or impropriety in the conviction made by the courts below.