RAJARAM PRASAD Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the concurrent verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

(2.) THE cheque is for an amountof Rs. 5 ,000 / -. It bears the date 25. 2. 2002. THE petitioner was sentenced by the trial court to pay a fine of Rs. 5 ,000 /- and in default to undergo S. I for a period of thirty days. In the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence, the appellate court surprisingly appears to have modified the sentence to the prejudice of the petitioner, directing him to undergo imprisonment till rising of court and to pay an amount of Rs. 5,000/-and in default to undergo S. I. for a period of two months.

(3.) CALLED upon to explain the nature of the challenge which the petitioner wants to mount against the impugned concurrent judgments, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the cheque was not issued for the due discharge of any legally nforcible debt/liability, but was issued to PW2 as security when she, contrary to the interests of PW1, handed over to the petitioner a gold ornament pledged with pw1 by somebody else. Surprisingly and significantly this version is not at all advanced in reply to the notice of demand, which was duly received and acknowledged by him. Sending Ext. D2 earlier cannot obviously be a justification for not responding to the notice of demand as admittedly Ext. D2 does not at all refer to Ext. P1 cheque. The story advanced by the accused - of his transaction with the wife of the complainant has been denied by her as PW2. It passes ones comprehension as to why PW2 should hand over a gold ornament pledged with PW1 by somebody else to the petitioner for sale. The very version rebels against reason, logic and common sense. No attempt is made to satisfactorily establish the said plea. The evidence of DW3, to say the least, is perverse. The explanation of the accused as DW4 cannot be swallowed by any prudent mind even with tonnes of salt. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that there is absolutely no merit in the contention raised by the petitioner. The challenge on merits must fail.