NANDAKUMAR Vs. BABU KUMAR P.C. AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition is filed challenging the concurrent findings of conviction entered and the sentence imposed on the Revision Petitioner for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'the N.I. Act') in Criminal Appeal No. 353/2014 on the files of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam. The above appeal was filed challenging the judgment finding that the Revision Petitioner is guilty of the said offence, passed in C.C. No. 946/2011 on the files of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Ernakulam. According to the impugned judgment, the Revision Petitioner is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one day till rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,50,000/ -, which shall be given to the complainant under Sec. 357(1) Cr.P.C. as compensation and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

(2.) The complainant's case is that for the requirement of starting a business, accused borrowed an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/ - from the complainant and he had given that amount after withdrawing the said amount from the account of his wife. After repeated demands, during the third week of July, 2011, for discharging the said liability, the accused drawn and issued Ext. P1 cheque for an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/ -. When he presented the cheque for encashment, the same was dishonoured and returned for want of sufficient funds. Though he caused to issue a lawyer's notice demanding the said amount, neither there was any repayment nor any reply. Thus, he has committed the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the N.I. Act.

(3.) To discharge the initial burden of proving execution and issuance of the cheque, the complainant was examined as P.W. 1 and Exts. P1 to P6 were marked. After evaluating the aforesaid evidence, the court below observed that the complainant has successfully discharged the initial burden of proving execution and issuance of the cheque and thereby presumption under Ss. 139 and 118(a) would stand in favour of the complainant. I do not find any reason to interfere with the said findings.