P.GOPI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.539/2001 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Neyyattinkara, a case instituted by the second respondent herein alleging the commission of offence under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a compensation of 90,000/- to the second respondent. In the appeal, the Additional Sessions Fast Track Court-IV, Thiruvananthapuram confirmed the conviction and reduced the imprisonment awarded to imprisonment till the rising of the Court while retaining the direction to pay compensation as such. Aggrieved by the above judgment dtd. 31/1/2012 in Crl.A.No.649/2010, the petitioner is here before this Court with this revision.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the learned counsel for the second respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the first respondent.

(3.) The Trial Court relied on the testimony of the second respondent as PW1 and seven documents which were marked as Exts.P1 to P7 for arriving at the finding that the petitioner is guilty of commission of offence under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The evidence adduced by the petitioner and two witnesses as DW1 to DW3 and the documents marked as Exts.D1 series, D2 and D3 were found by the Trial Court to be insufficient to unsettle the presumption under Sec. 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act which the complainant established through his evidence. It is, in fact, during the second spell of trial that the Trial Court rendered the judgment dtd. 26/7/2010 convicting and sentencing the revision petitioner herein. Earlier, the revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court, but the above conviction and sentence were set aside by the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram as per the judgment dtd. 17/4/2008 in Crl.A.No.314/2007, and the matter was remanded back to the learned Magistrate with a direction to give opportunity to the accused to send Ext.D1 series and Ext.D2 for expert opinion and to permit further evidence. After the remand of the case, the documents marked as Exts.D1 series and D2, along with specimen handwritings of the complainant, were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram for the comparison of handwritings. After getting Ext.D3 report of the expert, and the examination of the Assistant Director of FSL, Thiruvananthapuram as DW3, the learned Magistrate again evaluated the evidence and arrived at the finding against the revision petitioner.