P.N.SUKUMARAN Vs. K.N.MADHAVAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is preferred by the accused against the concurrent judgment in Crl.Appeal No.353/2003 of Additional Sessions Judge, Kottayam. He was accused in C.C.No.171/2001 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court- I, Kottayam for offence punishable u/s.138 of the N.I. Act. The complainant is the 1st respondent in this revision petition, his case is that the accused borrowed a sum of 3,72,000/- from him and in discharge of that debt, accused issued Ext.P1 cheque. When it was presented for encashment, it was dishonoured for the reason of funds insufficient. The complainant demanded the amount by giving a notice in writing. Even after receipt of notice, there was no repayment. In the circumstances, the above complaint was filed in the trial Court.

(2.) During trial, complainant examined his power attorney holder as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P10 were marked as his documentary evidence. The accused denied the transaction and examined DW1 and marked Ext.D1. The learned Magistrate convicted the accused and sentenced to simple imprisonment for one month u/s.138 of the N.I. Act and compensation of 3,72,000/- u/s.357(3) Cr.P.C. with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for three months. Against that, he preferred Crl.Appeal No.353/2003 before Additional Sessions Judge (Spl), Kottayam and that Court dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by that, the accused preferred this revision petition.

(3.) Sri. M.J. Thomas, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner contended that both courts below did not consider the legal points highlighted by the revision petitioner. There is misreading of evidence which resulted in miscarriage of justice. Both courts were under the impression that the power of attorney holder has direct knowledge regarding the transaction with the revision petitioner.