LAWS(KER)-2006-9-49

P N GOPINATHAN Vs. SIVADASAN KUNJU

Decided On September 27, 2006
P. N. GOPINATHAN Appellant
V/S
SIVADASAN KUNJU Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Is the presumption under Section 139 available to a payee Is such presumption available only to a holder Does a holder under Section 139 include a payee These interesting questions are 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 N.I. Act.

(2.) There are two cheques involved for the amounts of Rs. 2,50,000/- and Rs. 1,60,000/- both dated 15.6.1999. The petitioner now faces a sentence of S.I. for a period of one month. There is also a direction to pay an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation. No default sentence is seen imposed.

(3.) The signatures in the cheques are admitted. The notice of demand, Ext.P7, succeeded in evoidng Ext.P8 reply, in which the liability for payment was disputed. The complainant examined himself as PW1 and proved Exts.Pl to P10. The accused did not adduce any defence evidence - oral or documentary. In Ext.P8 reply notice and in the course of the trial, the accused took up a fairly definite and specific stand. Transaction between the parties was admitted. Handing over of both cheques after they were duly filled up was also admitted. But the accused took up a contention that the real transaction was for an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs only. He pleaded that though the transaction was for Rs. 2 lakhs he was constrained to hand over Ext.Pl cheque for Rs. 2.5 lakhs. According to him, subsequently he had paid interest every month of at the rate of Rs. 6,000/- p.m. Admittedly such payment was not continued and there was default in payment of interest. It is thereupon that the second cheque, Ext.P2, for an amount of Rs. 1.6 lakhs was allegedly issued by the petitioner to the complainant. In short, the petitioner contended that the initial transaction was not for Rs. 2.5 lakhs. He further contended that the cheque for Rs. 1.6 lakhs though admittedly issued, the complainant was not entitled to receive such an excessive amount by way of interest.