MOHANDAS Vs. P.V.KARUNAKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON dishonour of a cheque issued by the revision petitioner in favour of the 1st respondent for 80,000/ -, the revision petitioner faced prosecution at the instance of the 1st respondent before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -IV, Ernakulam in C.C No.5394 of 2010. He pleaded not guilty to the accusations before the learned Magistrate. The complainant examined himself and proved Exts.P1 to P6 during trial. The accused did not adduce any evidence in defence. Believing the evidence from the side of the complainant, the trial court found the revision petitioner guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. On conviction, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month, and was also directed to pay a fine of 1,18,000/ -.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the conviction and sentence, the accused approached the Court of Session, Ernakulam with Crl.A No.512 of 2013. In appeal, the learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction, but modified the sentence. Accordingly, the jail sentence was reduced to imprisonment till rising of the court, and the amount of fine was reduced to 1 lakh with direction to pay the entire fine amount as compensation to the complainant under Section 357 (1) of Cr.P.C. Now the accused is before this Court in revision, challenging the legality and propriety of the conviction and sentence.

(3.) THE complainant has given definite evidence proving the transaction in which the revision petitioner incurred a debt of 80,000/ - and also proving the execution of Ext.P1 cheque. Bouncing of the cheque stands well proved by the evidence of the complainant, and also Exts.P2 and P3 documents. The revision petitioner 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. The evidence given by the complainant stands not in any manner discredited. He has also proved compliance of the statutory requirements for prosecution. Ext.P4 statutory notice was sent in time, and the complaint was also filed in time. The revision petitioner has no case that he had made payment of the cheque amount as demanded in the statutory notice. Thus, I find no illegality or or irregularity or or impropriety in the conviction made by the courts below.