ABOOBACKER KOTTAKKODAN Vs. MELETHIL MUHAMMED @ KUNHIPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in S.T.No.84/2012 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, (Forest Offences), Manjeri instituted on the basis of a complaint preferred by the first respondent herein. The trial court has in the impugned judgment rendered on 31.12.2014 has convicted and sentenced the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay fine of Rs.3,00,000/-, which is to be disbursed to the complainant as compensation and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month. Further that the fine amount so realised, was ordered to be given to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner had preferred Crl.Appeal No.9 of 2015 before the Sessions Court, Manjeri. The appellate Sessions Court, as per the impugned judgment rendered on 31.03.2017 has upheld the conviction but has modified the substantive sentence of simple imprisonment for one month to simple imprisonment till rising of the court and has also confirmed the fine amount of Rs.3,00,000/- with a default sentence clause of simple imprisonment for one month. The fine amount so realised was directed to be paid as compensation to the complainant under Section 357(1) of Cr.P.C. It is aggrieved by these concurrent verdicts of the trial court and the appellate court, that the petitioner has preferred this instant revision petition under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of Cr.P.C.

(3.) The gist of prosecution case is that, towards the discharge of a liability owned by the accused from the complainant, the revision petitioner/accused had issued Ext.P1 cheque dated 17.04.2012 for Rs.3,00,000/-, drawn from the account of the accused payable in favour of the complainant. The cheque, when presented, was dishonoured with an endorsement that the payment was stopped by the drawer. Thereupon the complainant had issued Ext.P4 statutory demand notice dated 02.05.2012 and though it was received by the accused, he was not responded. Thereupon the complainant, after fulfilling the requisite formalities, had instituted the present complaint which resulted in the trial. During the trial, the complainant had examined as P.W.1 and were marked as Exts.P1 to P6 documents. The defence has not adduced any oral or documentary evidence.