SASI Vs. MADHAVAN PILLAI 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. 368/2010 on the files of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Kollam. The above appeal was filed challenging the judgment finding that the Revision Petitioner is guilty of the said offence, passed in S.T.C. No. 28/2009 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court -II, Karunagappally. 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. 2,60,000/ -, which, on realisation, shall be given to the complainant as compensation and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for five months.

(2.) The complainant's case is that the accused borrowed an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/ - from him and in discharge of the said amount, Ext. P1 cheque was issued and on presentation for encashment, the cheque was dishonored and returned for want of sufficient funds. The complainant successfully proved the execution and issuance of the cheque. But, coming to rebuttal, no evidence either oral or documentary was produced. He denied the liability under the cheque by putting bare suggestions to the complaint when he was cross examined. But nothing brought out to discredit the evidence of the complainant. In this analysis, the courts below are justified in finding that the accused failed to rebut the presumption, which stood in favour of the complainant.

(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.