PNM HOSPITAL Vs. HDFC BANK LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are the accused for offence under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in S.T.No.1830/2010 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-IV (Mobile), Thiruvananthapuram, instituted on the basis of a complaint filed by the 1st respondent herein. The trial court as per the impugned judgment rendered on 1.4.2016 had convicted the petitioners for the above said offence and had sentenced the 1st petitioner partnership firm (accused No.1) to pay fine of Rs. 5000.00 and the 2nd petitioner herein (A-2-Managing Partner of the firm) to undergo simple imprisonment till the rising of the court and that he should pay compensation of Rs.2,06,750.00 to the complainant under Sec. 357(3) of the Crimial P.C. and in default thereof, the 2nd petitioner (A-2) should undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 2 months. Aggrieved by this verdict, the petitioners had preferred a criminal appeal as Crl.Appeal No.108/2016, before the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The appellate court concerned (Court of Addl. Sessions Judge-II, Thiruvananthapuram), as per the impugned judgment rendered on 1.12.2016 has dismissed the appeal and has thereby confirmed the impugned conviction and sentence. It is aggrieved by these concurrent verdicts of both the courts below that the petitioners have filed the instant revision petition by taking recourse to the remedies provided under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 of the Cr.P.C.

(2.) Heard Sri. Ajith G. Anjarlekar, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners (accused) and Sri. Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Prosecutor appearing for R-2 State. In the nature of the orders that are proposed to be passed in this revision, notice to R-1 (complainant) will stand dispensed with.

(3.) The gist of the prosecution case is that in discharge of a legally recoverable liability, the revision petitioners accused had issued the instant cheque (Ext.P-2 dated 5.9.2009) for amount of Rs. 2,06,750.00 in favour of the complainant. The complainant had presented the said cheque for encashment before his collection bank, which resulted in the instant dishonour. The complainant had issued the requisite statutory demand notice as envisaged under Sec. 138 proviso (b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act as per Ext.P-4, which was duly received by the petitioners. It appears that the petitioners had not given reply to the said notice and thereupon, since the demanded amount covered by the cheque was not paid by the petitioners, the 1st respondent herein had preferred the instant complaint alleging offence under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, against the petitioners, which resulted in the instant trial.