DAYANAND PANDATH Vs. RAJAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Revision Petitioner is the accused in C.C. No. 804/2001 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - III, Thrissur, as well as the appellant in Crl.Appeal No. 264/2005 on the files of the First Additional Sessions Court, Thrissur. He was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on a complaint filed by the first respondent.

(2.) THE case of the first respondent is that the petitioner had borrowed an amount of Rs. 1,10,000/ - from the respondent and he issued Exhibit P1 cheque for the said amount in favour of the respondent. When he presented the said cheque, the same was dishonoured and returned for want of sufficient funds in the account of the petitioner. Though the respondent caused to issue a lawyer's notice and the same was returned as unclaimed. Thus the petitioner has committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

(3.) THOUGH this Revision Petition has been filed on various grounds challenging the appreciation of evidence. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly canvassed the point, the respondent failed to prove the original transaction and the averments in the complaint do not disclose any particulars of the original transaction. Therefore, the court below ought to have found that the respondent miserably failed to discharge the initial burden of proof. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent advanced arguments to justify the concurrent findings of the conviction. According to him, the respondent was examined as PW1 and Exhibits P1 to P6 were marked to prove the drawing and issuance of the cheque, to the respondents. It is also pointed out that, though PW1 was cross examined at length and into minute details, nothing brought out to discredit the evidence of PW1 as regards the issuance of the cheque to him.