MAJEED NELLIKKA Vs. BERGER PAINTS INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against a concurrent verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

(2.) The cheque is for an amount of Rs. 2,29,939/-. It bears the date 31.3.2004. The petitioner now faces a sentence of S.I. for a period of five months. There is also a direction to pay an amount of Rs. 1,30,000/- as compensation and in default to undergo S.I. for a further period of one month.

(3.) The signature in the cheque is admitted. The notice of demand, though addressed in the correct address of the petitioner and duly acknowledged, did not admittedly evoke any response. The complainant examined PW1 and proved Exts.P1 to P4 series. The accused did not adduce any evidence - oral or documentary. Though there was no response to the notice of demand, in the course of the trial an attempt was made to advance a contention that the cheque was not issued for the due discharge of any legally enforcible debt/liability, but was issued only as security when the parties entered into transactions. The blank signed cheque handed over by the petitioner to the complainant was being misutilised by the complainant, it was contended.