C.CICILY Vs. K.SULOCHANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.66/2014 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court - VI, Thiruvananthapuram, for offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. C.C.No.66/2014 is instituted on the basis of a complaint filed by the 1st respondent herein and it is disposed on 10.12.2014 as evidenced as Annexure-I. The court below sentenced her to undergo simple imprisonment till the rising of the Court and directed to pay compensation of 4,00,000/- (which is the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque) to the complainant under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the said verdict of the trial court, the petitioner had preferred Crl.A.No.4/2015 before the Addl.Sessions Court- VII, Thiruvananthapuram. As per Annexure - III judgment dated 17.02.2017, the Court dismissed the appeal and thereby confirmed the conviction and sentence. It is challenging the verdicts of both the courts below the petitioner has preferred the instant Crl.Revision Petition by taking recourse to the provisions contained in Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) Heard Sri.Augustine Joseph, learned counsel for the revision petitioner (accused), Sri.George Mathew, learned counsel for the 1st respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 2nd respondent, State. The prosecution case is that the accused issued Ext.P1 cheque bearing No.087604 dated 15.01.2013 for 4,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of Travancore, KUOC Branch, Thiruvananthapuram. When the cheque was presented for collection, the same was dishonoured on 31.01.2013 on the ground of insufficiency of funds as per Ext.P2 dishonour memo. Pursuant to that Ext.P3 legal notice was issued to the accused in her official and residential address on 12.02.2013 informing her about the dishonour of the cheque and calling upon her to pay the amount as per the cheque. That notice was duly served as per Ext.P5. Once such notice was accepted and the other was returned unclaimed. Therefore, complainant had the benefit of presumption under Section 27 of the General Clause Act in the matter of service of the said registered notice. During the trial the complainant herself was examined as PW1 and marked Exts.P1 to P7 documents. The defence has adduced evidence as DW1 but has not adduced any documentary evidence.

(3.) On a careful evaluation of the impugned judgments of both the courts below, this Court is of the considered view that the said courts, after considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, concurrently found that the revision petitioner/accused has duly executed Ext.P1 cheque as contemplated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Defence set up by the revision petitioner has also repelled by the courts below. This Court sitting in revision will be justified in repelling the same only if the factual findings regarding the commission of offence are tending by purversity, unreasonableness and illegality. No such circumstance has been brought to the notice of this Court to esablish that said concurrent findings are vitiated on that count. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has not been able to convince this Court that the impugned judgments rendered by both the courts below suffering from illegality and impropriety. In this circumstances, this Court is not in the postition to interfere in the said factual findings regarding conviction of the petitioner by taking recourse to the revisionary powers.