JAYARAM D Vs. V K ANTONY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is accused for offence under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in C.C.No.50/2010 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Cherthala, instituted on the basis of a complaint filed by the 1st respondent herein. The trial court as per the impugned judgment dated 27.4.2013 had convicted the petitioner for the abovesaid offence and had also sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months and to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- (which is the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque) to the complainant as compensation under Sec. 357(3) of the Cr.P.C. and in default thereof, he was to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 15 days. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner had preferred Crl.Appeal No.208/2013 before the Sessions Court, Alappuzha. The appellate court concerned (the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Alappuzha) by the impugned judgment rendered on 31.10.2014 has dismissed the appeal, thereby confirming the impugned sentence and conviction. It is aggrieved by the abovesaid concurrent verdicts rendered by both the courts below that the petitioner has preferred the instant Criminal Revision Petition by taking recourse to the remedies conferred under Sec.397 read with Sec.401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) The gist of the prosecution case is that the accused had owed an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant as personal loan and in discharge of that liability, the accused had given Ext.P-1 cheque dated 4.12.2009 for an amount of Rs.50,000/-, which when presented by the complainant, was dishonoured on the ground of insufficiency of funds. Thereupon, the complainant had given the statutory demand notice under Sec.138 proviso (b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, as per Ext.P-4 notice, which was duly delivered on the accused. Since the accused did not make the payment within the stipulated time limit of 15 days, the complainant instituted the present complaint, which resulted in the trial in question leading to the conviction and sentence of the petitioner accused.

(3.) The complainant had examined himself as P.W-1 and has marked Exts.P-1 to P-7 documents. The accused has examined himself as DW-1 and marked Exts.D-1 to D-4 documents through P.W-1.