M.M. ABDUL HAMEED Vs. N.V. SOMASUNDARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN July 2000, the first respondent herein sold a car to the revision petitioner for Rs. 41,000/ -. The revision petitioner made payment of only Rs. 1,000/ - and issued two cheques for the balance amount of Rs. 40,000/ -. When the first respondent presented the cheque for collection, the cheques were bounced due to insufficiency of funds. When the revision petitioner failed to make payment as demanded in the statutory notice, the first respondent, filed complaint before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thalassery alleging the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

(2.) THE revision petitioner entered appearance in the trail court, pleaded not guilty, and claimed to be tried. The complainant examined himself as PW1 and marked Exts. P1 to P9 during trial. The accused examined himself as DW1 with permission under Section 315 Cr.P.C. On an appreciation of the evidence, the learned Magistrate found the revision petitioner guilty under Section 138 NI Act. On conviction, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.

(3.) ON hearing both sides and on a perusal of the case records I find no reason or ground to admit this revision to files. The complainant has given definite and consistent evidence proving the transaction in which the revision petitioner incurred a debt of Rs. 40,000/ - and also proving the execution of the Exts. P1 to P2 cheques in discharge of the said debt. Exts. P3 and P4 documents will show that the cheques in question were bounced due to in sufficiency of funds. The revision petitioner has no case that he had funds in his account to honour the cheque or that cheques were bounced on some other ground. I find that the complainant has well proved the case on facts, that the Exts. P1 and P2 cheques were issued by the revision petitioner in discharge of a debt of Rs. 40,000/ -. Now we are in 2014. There is reason to believe that the revision petitioner has not made payment of any amount towards the debt for the last 14 years. The Ext. P6 statutory notice was sent by the complainant in time, and the complaint was also filed well within time. The revision petitioner has no case that he had made payment of the cheque amount as demanded in the notice, and he has also no explanation why he did not send reply to the statutory notice. In fact the debt is further proved by the Ext. P9 agreement and the Ext. P8 account. I find that the complainant has well proved the offence punishable under Section 138 NI Act with all the necessary elements and ingredients, and he has also proved compliance of the statutory requirements in initiating prosecution. I find no scope for interference in the conviction made by the courts below on the ground of any irregularity or impropriety or illegality.