SHIHABUDHEEN S/O BASHEER Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No. 867/2012 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Kothamangalam, for offence punishable under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, instituted on the basis of the complaint filed by the 2 nd respondent (complainant). The trial court as per the impugned judgment dated 20.1.2015 had convicted the petitioner and had sentenced him to undergo imprisonment till rising of the court and to pay fine of Rs.5,50,000/- to the complainant and in default thereof, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner had preferred Crl.Appeal No.72/2015 before the appellate Sessions Court concerned (Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Muvattpuzha). The appellate court as per the impugned appellate judgment dated 16.1.2017 had upheld the conviction and had also confirmed the sentence, thereby dismissed the appeal. It is aggrieved by the said concurrent findings of both the courts below that the petitioner has preferred the instant revision petition by taking recourse to the remedies available under Sec.397 read with Sec.401 of the Cr.P.C.

(2.) Heard Sri.Shajin.S.Hameed, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner (accused) , Sri.S.Dileep (Kallar), learned counsel appearing for R-2 (complainant) and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Prosecutor appearing for R-1 State.

(3.) The brief of the case of the complainant is that in discharge of a liability of Rs.5,50,000/- owed by the accused to the complainant, the revision petitioner (accused) had issued Ext.P-1 cheque dated 9.10.2012 for Rs. 5,50,000/- drawn from his account in favour of the complainant. The cheque when presented resulted in dishonour as per Exts.P-2 and P-3 memos and thereupon, the complainant had issued Ext.P-4 statutory demand notice under Sec. 138 proviso (b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act calling upon the accused to pay of the amount covered by the said cheque within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice. The notice sent by registered post has been duly served on the accused as per Exts.P-5 and P-6. That the accused had sent Ext.P-7 reply notice raising untenable contentions and denying the liability of the amount covered by the cheque. That since the amount was not paid, the complainant after adhering to the requisite procedural formalities, has instituted the present complaint, which led to the conduct of the trial.