PAUL JOSEPH Vs. K.G. VINCENT 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 Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'the N.I. Act') in Criminal Appeal No. 311 of 2014 on the files of the Additional District and Sessions Judge -IV, Kozhikode. The above appeal was filed challenging the judgment finding that the Revision Petitioner is guilty of the said offence, passed in C.C. No. 200 of 2012 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court -IV, Kozhikode. According to the impugned judgment, the Revision Petitioner is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 78,10,000/ - under Sec. 138 of the N.I. Act. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three months. If the fine amount is realised, the same shall be paid as compensation to the complainant.

(2.) THE case of the complainant is that in the year 2007, as per the inducement of the accused, he paid an amount of Rs. 38 lakhs to the accused for purchasing landed properties. Out of this amount, Rs. 17 lakhs was paid by Demand Draft and the rest of the money was paid through money transfer from Dubai to the account of the accused in HDFC Bank. After 4 years, that is in 2011, the accused informed him that the properties purchased were sold and, as a share in the same transaction, the accused agreed to give Rs. 85 lakhs being the capital invested and profits derived from the same. Towards the discharge of the said liability, on 28/7/2011, the accused, in the presence of the complainant at the residence of the accused, executed Exts.P1 and P2 cheques for an amount of Rs. 45 lakhs and Rs. 40 lakhs respectively. Thereafter, towards the discharge of a part of the liability, the accused paid a sum of Rs. 7 lakhs to the complainant on 4/10/2011. Thereafter, during January, 2012 the complainant presented the cheques for collection through his banker and the same were dishonoured and returned for want of sufficient fund and thereby the accused committed the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the N.I. Act.

(3.) GOING by the evidence, it is seen that the complainant was examined as P.W.1 and Exts.P1 to P9 were marked. He has given evidence in conformity with the averments in the complaint. Though he was subjected to cross -examination, no evidence brought to discredit his evidence or to probabilise the defence story put forward by the accused. In that context, the court below observed that the complainant has successfully discharged the initial burden of proving execution and issuance of the cheques and thereby the presumption under Secs.139 and 118(a) of the N.I. Act will stand in favour of the complainant.