LIJU JOSE Vs. THOMAS JOSEPH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though notice had been duly served on the 1st respondent/complainant, he has not chosen to enter appearance to contest this revision petition on merits.

(2.) 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. 345 of 2009 on the files of the Sessions Judge, Kottayam. 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. 50 of 2007 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court -III, Kanjirappally. According to the impugned judgment, the Revision Petitioner is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Sec. 138 of the N.I. Act and to pay a compensation of Rs. 7 lakhs to the complainant under Sec. 357(3) of the Cr.P.C. In default of payment of compensation, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three months.

(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. The courts below had concurrently found that the complainant/1st respondent had successfully discharged initial burden of proving execution and issuance of the cheque; whereas the Revision Petitioner had failed to rebut the presumption under Sec. 118(a) and 139 of the N.I. Act which stood in favour of the 1st respondent. So also, it is found that the debt due to the 1st respondent was a legally enforceable debt and Ext. P1 cheque was duly executed and issued in discharge of the said debt. I do not find any kind of illegality or impropriety in the said findings or perversity in appreciation of evidence, from which the above findings had been arrived. Therefore, I am not inclined to re -appreciate entire evidence once again and I confirm the concurrent findings of conviction.