SONY THOMAS Vs. MURUKESAN

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. 1,30,000/-. It bears the date 31.7.2002. The petitioner now faces a sentence of S.I. for a period of three months. There is a further direction to pay the actual cheque amount 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, though duly received and acknowledged, did not admittedly evoke any response. The complainant examined himself as PW1 and proved Exts.P1 to P6. The accused, who did not respond to the notice of demand, attempted to advance a contention in the course of the trial that the actual liability was only Rs.10,000/- and that the said liability had been discharged also. A blank signed cheque was issued as security to the complainant. That cheque was not returned when the liability was discharged. The complainant is misutilising the said cheque to stake a totally false claim against the petitioner. The accused examined a friend of his as DW1 in support of this contention.