K P RATHIKUMAR Vs. N K SANTHAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Does the admission that the cheque was issued as security for "Dd-¸n-te-¡mbn" repayment of the loan take the transaction out of the sweep of S.138 of the N.I. Act This is the relevant question that falls for consideration in this revision petition directed against a concurrent verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence in a prosecution under S.138 of the N.I. Act.

(2.) The cheque is for an amount of Rs. 20,000. It bears the date 01/01/2001. The petitioner now faces a sentence of S.I. for a period of two months. There is also a direction to pay an amount of Rs. 20,000 as compensation and in default to undergo S.I. for a period of one month.

(3.) The signature in the cheque is admitted. The notice of demand was duly received and acknowledged. But no reply is produced and proved. It is undisputed that a reply was sent and received by the counsel for the complainant. The complainant examined herself as PW 1 and proved Exts. P1 to P7. In the reply notice and in the course of the trial, the accused took up the stand that the cheque was issued as a signed blank cheque as security not to the complainant, but to her deceased husband as security for the due discharge of the liability in a transaction for a much lesser amount of Rs. 10,000. The said amount had been paid and discharged also without voucher. The complainant's husband had thereafter committed suicide. The complainant was misutilising the said cheque to stake such a false claim. The accused examined a witness as DW 1. The purpose of examination of this witness is to show that discharge without voucher of the liability to the deceased husband of the complainant was made.