K. SUGATHAN Vs. C.K. UPENDRAN 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. 513 of 2012 on the files of the Addl. District & Sessions Judge -IV, Thiruvananthapuram. The above appeal was filed challenging the judgment finding that the revision petitioner is guilty of the said offence, passed in ST No. 1261 of 20076 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court -II, Thiruvananthapuram. According to the impugned judgment, the revision petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one day till rising of the court and to pay to the complainant Rs. 2,00,000/ - together with interest @ 9% per annum from 21.05.2007 till realisation as compensation under Section 357(3) of the Cr.P.C. In default of payment of compensation, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for four months.

(2.) THE specific case of the complainant is that in order to discharge legally enforceable debt, the accused executed and issued a cheque dated 21.05.2001 in favour of the complainant drawn on Canara Bank, Attingal Branch and when the complainant presented the cheque for encashment, the said cheque was dishonoured and returned for want of 'sufficient funds'. Per contra, the specific case pleaded by the petitioner is that, he has no money transactions with the complainant and he borrowed an amount of Rs. 50,000/ - from one Anil Kumar and issued a blank signed cheque to said Anil Kumar. But the said Anil Kumar had retained the cheque and did not give it back to the complainant demanding exorbitant interest for the borrowed amount. According to the petitioner, the cheque leaf, which was given to Anil Kumar is misutilised the cheque by the complainant in this case and this complaint is filed using that cheque.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterated the contentions which were raised before the courts below and got rejected concurrently. The learned counsel urged for a re -appreciation of evidence once again, which is not permissible under the revisional jurisdiction unless any kind of perversity is found in the appreciation of evidence. The revision petitioner failed to point out any kind of perversity in the appreciation of evidence or illegality or impropriety in the findings whereby the trial court convicted him.