M. HANEEFA Vs. O. NASEEMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner is aggrieved by the conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in S.T.C No.10234/2005 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -II, Kannur. The prosecution was initiated by his divorced wife. A cheque for 1,25,000/ - issued by him in discharge of the liabilities under the provisions of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act 1986 was dishounoured due to insufficiency of funds. Instead of making provision directly by way of amount or property, the revision petitioner issued a cheque ,but it happened to be bounced.

(2.) THE revision petitioner entered appearance in the trial court and pleaded not guilty to the accusations. During trial the complainant examined herself as PW1 and marked Exts.P1 to P5 documents. The accused marked Ext.D1 document during trial, but he did not adduce any evidence in defence. Believing the evidence given by the divorced wife, that the amount is still due from the former husband, and that he has not made payment inspite of repeated demands, including statutory demand, the trial court convicted him. On conviction under Section 138 of N.I Act he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months, and was also directed to pay the cheque amount as compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C.

(3.) THE first respondent remained absent inspite of notice. On hearing the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, and on a perusal of the case records, including the impugned judgment, I find no sufficient ground or reason to admit the revision to files. I find that with some modification in sentence without causing hardship or prejudice to the complainant this revision petition can be disposed of, without being admitted to files.