RAMKRISHNAN Vs. GANGADHARAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Does the decision in Ramakrishnan v. Parthasaradhy deserve reconsideration This is the question raised in this revision petition, which is directed against a concurrent verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

(2.) The cheque is for an amount of Rs. 3,00,000 and bears the date March 19, 1999. The signature in the cheque is admitted. Handing over of the cheque is not disputed. The short relevant contention raised is that the cheque was issued not for the discharge of any legally enforceable debt/liability. The liability, which is claimed to be discharged, is one that was barred under the law of limitation on the date of the cheque. The complainant examined himself as PW1 and proved exhibits P1 to P6. The accused examined himself as DW1.

(3.) The courts below concurrently came to the conclusion that all ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act have been established and that the petitioner has not succeeded in establishing the defence urged by him. Accordingly, they proceeded to pass the impugned concurrent judgments.