K.L. JOHNYKUTTY Vs. V.M. PAREETHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner herein faced prosecution before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -I, Erattupetta in CC.No.490/2009 on a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, on the allegation that a cheque issued by him for Rs.2,00,000/ - in discharge of the amount borrowed from the respondent/complainant was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds.

(2.) THE revision petitioner pleaded not guilty in the trial court and maintained a defence that the cheque was in fact handed over by him only as a security. During trial, the complainant was examined as Pw1 and Exts.P1 to P6 were marked. No defence evidence was adduced on the side of the revision petitioner to prove the claim regarding the actual amount due, or that the cheque in dispute was issued for a lesser amount. On an appreciation of evidence the learned Magistrate found the revision petitioner guilty under Section 138 of the NI Act. On conviction, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment till the rising of the court, and was also directed to pay a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/ - to the complainant under Section 357(3) Crl.PC.

(3.) ON hearing the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and on a perusal of the case records, I find that Ext.P1 cheque was in fact issued by the revision petitioner in discharge of a liability. It has come out in evidence that Ext.P1 cheque, admittedly bearing the signature of the revision petitioner was handed over by him to the complainant. The complainant has given definite evidence regarding the transaction and also regarding the issuance of Ext.P1 cheque. This evidence stands not in any manner discredited. The plea made by the accused stands not in any manner proved. Ext.P2 document will show that the cheque was bounced due to insufficiency of funds. The revision petitioner has no case that he had sufficient funds in his account, or that the cheque was bounced on some other ground. The revision petitioner has admitted that he had received the statutory notice. He has no case that he had made payment of the cheque amount as demanded in the notice. The complaint was filed by the complainant within time. I find no scope for interference in the conviction on the ground of any irregularity or illegality. The sentence imposed by the trial court is only the minimum possible under the law, and so there is no scope for interference in sentence also.