ANIL BABU V. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The afore captioned Criminal Revision Petition has been instituted by the petitioner / accused for impugning the conviction and sentence imposed on him for the offence under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as per the judgment dated 27/09/2012 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - VIII, Thiruvananthapuram, in ST. 69/2010 as confirmed by the impugned appellate judgment dated 09/08/2016 of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge - IV, Thiruvananthapuram, in Crl. Appeal 490/2012. The Trial Court had convicted the petitioner for the above said offence and that sentenced him to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay fine of Rs.2,00,000.00 (Rupees Two lakhs only) (which is the amount covered by Ext.P - 1 cheque bearing No. 090290 dated 23/01/2008) to the complainant (PW - 1) under S.357(3) of the Crimial P.C. and in default thereof, the accused was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 years. The Appellate Sessions Court had dismissed the appeal confirming both the conviction as well as the above said sentence imposed by the Trial Court.

(2.) Heard Sri. D. Kishore, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner / accused and Sri. Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for R - 1, State of Kerala. In the nature of the orders proposed to be passed in this revision, it is ordered that notice to R - 2 (complainant) will stand dispensed with.

(3.) The case of the complainant is that the complainant and the accused were known to each other and that the accused had requested him to borrow Rs.2 lakhs as evident from Ext.P - 7 (statement of accounts of the bank account of the complainant) an amount of Rs.2 lakhs was transferred on 15/09/2007 from the complainant's account to the bank account of the accused. Later, on demanding repayment of the said borrowed amount, the accused had issued the impugned Ext.P - 1 cheque No. 090290 dated 23/01/2008 drawn on the IDBI Bank, M.G. Road, Thiruvananthapuram, in favour of the complainant and on presentation the same was dishonoured and that on receipt of Ext.P - 2 Bank dishonour memo, the complainant had send Ext.P - 3 statutory notice dated 30/01/2008 calling upon the complainant to make the payment and after receipt of the said notice, accused had sent Ext.P - 6 reply notice giving his version as to why he is not liable to pay the said amount, etc. This resulted in the institution of the above complaint. The complainant had tendered evidence as PW - 1 and had also marked Exts.P - 1 to P - 7 documents from his side. The accused had adduced evidence to DW - 1 (accused), DW - 2 (Bank Manager of the accused) and DW - 3 (said to be a common friend of the accused and the complainant) and the defence had also marked Exts.D - 1 to D - 3 documents.