K RAVEENDRAN Vs. P CHANDRASEKHARAN

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.95,000/-. It bears the date 1.4.1998. The petitioner now faces a sentence of S.I. for a period of three months. There is a toothless direction under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. to pay an amount of Rs.95,000/- as compensation. There is no default sentence stipulated.

(3.) The signature in the cheque is admitted. The notice of demand, though duly received and acknowledged, did not evoke any response. The complainant examined himself as PW1. Exts.P1 to P5 were marked. The accused did not adduce any evidence - oral or documentary. The accused, who did not choose to respond to the notice of demand, attempted to advance a defence in the course of the trial that the cheque was not issued for the due discharge of any legally enforcible debt/liability. According to him, he had approached one Valsan for availing a loan of Rs.20,000/- The said Valsan had taken the petitioner to the complainant. The complainant through the said Valsan advanced an amount of Rs.20,000/- A blank signed cheque was handed over as security. There was no transaction of loan of Rs.95,000/- The liability in the loan transaction of Rs.20,000/- had been paid and discharged. But a totally false claim is being staked against the petitioner by the complainant.