ALI EDAYERATH Vs. STATE OF KERALA 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. 71 of 2012 on the files of the Additional Sessions Judge -III, Manjeri. The above appeal was filed challenging the judgment whereby the Revision Petitioner was found guilty of the said offence, passed in C.C. No. 467 of 2009 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court -I, Perinthalmanna. According to the impugned judgment, the Revision Petitioner stands sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months under Sec. 138 of the N.I. Act and to pay a compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs to the complainant under Sec. 357(3) of the Cr.P.C. In default of payment of compensation, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for two months.

(2.) The complainant's case is that the accused had borrowed an amount of Rs. 1,95,000/ - from him to purchase an Innova car from his brother Mohammed Basheer and in discharge of the said liability, Ext. P1 cheque was issued for the said amount. But, on presentation, the said cheque was dishonored and returned for want of sufficient funds.

(3.) In defence, the accused contended that he had no transaction with the complainant; but his specific case was that the accused had vehicle transaction with the brother of the complainant and in that transaction, a blank cheque was given by the accused in favour of the brother of the complainant and the complainant had misappropriated the above said cheque and filed this false case against him. Though he raised such a contention, no evidence had been adduced to substantiate the said contention so as to rebut the presumptions under the N.I. Act which stood in favour of the complainant. Therefore, the court below can be justified in finding that the accused has miserably filed to rebut the presumptions under Secs. 118(a) and 139 of the N.I. Act which stood in favour of the complainant.