P.YAHIYA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is at the instance of the accused in CC No.163 of 2003 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III (Mobile Court), Ernakulam, assailing the judgment in Crl.Appeal No.526 of 2007 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-II), Ernakulam, which upheld his conviction and sentence under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred as 'the N.I Act').

(2.) CC No.163 of 2003 arose out of a complaint filed by the 2nd respondent/complainant against the revision petitioner under Sec. 138 of the N.I Act. The allegation in the complaint was that, the complainant/2nd respondent, a partnership firm engaged in the wholesale business of readymade garments at Ernakulam, supplied readymade items to the revision petitioner who was running a shop by name M/s.Arafa Tex at Kollam. Towards the cost of readymade garments purchased by the revision petitioner from the complainant/2nd respondent, he issued cheque No.13859 dtd. 10/10/1998 drawn on Federal Bank Limited, Umainalloor branch for an amount of Rs.42,639.00. When the complainant presented that cheque for encashment, it was returned unpaid for the reason 'exceeds arrangement'. The complainant/2nd respondent issued registered notice to the revision petitioner in his residential address as well as in the address where he was working as a Musaliyar. Those notices returned with the endorsement 'addressee left without instructions'. Since the amount was not paid, the complainant/2nd respondent preferred the complaint under Sec. 138 of N.I Act.

(3.) Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Sec. 138 of the N.I Act and issued summons to the revision petitioner. On appearance before court, substance of accusation was read over to the revision petitioner to which he pleaded not guilty. Thereupon, PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exts.P1 to P10 were marked from the side of the complainant. On closure of the evidence of the complainant, the revision petitioner was questioned under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. He denied all the incriminating circumstances brought on record, and DWs 1 to 6 were examined and Exts.D1 to D12 were marked from defence side.