K V VASU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in S.T.No.31/2014 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Nadapuram, on the basis of a complaint instituted by the 2nd respondent herein. The trial court as per the impugned judgment rendered on 27.3.2015 had convicted the petitioner for the abovesaid offence in this case and had sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment till rising of the court and to pay an amount of Rs. 1 lakh (cheque amount) to the complainant by way compensation under Sec.357(3) of the Cr.P.C. and in default thereof, to udnergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 3 months, etc. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner had preferred Crl.Appeal No. 214/2015 before the Sessions Court, Kozhikode. The appellate court concerned (the Court of II Addl. Sessions Judge, Kozhikode) as per the impugned judgment rendered on 11.3.2016 has dismissed the appeal, thereby has confirmed the impugned conviction and sentence. It is challenging the concurrent verdicts of both the courts below that the petitioner has preferred this Criminal Revision Petition taking recourse to the remedies conferred under Sec.397 read with Sec. 401 of the Cr.P.C.

(2.) Heard Sri.C.S.Manu, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner accused, Sri.Sunny Mathew, learned counsel appearing for R-2 complainant and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Prosecutor appearing for R-1 State.

(3.) The gist of the prosecution case is that on account of the debt owed by the accused to the complainant, the revision petitioner accused had executed and issued Ext.P-1 cheque dated 3.4.2014 for an amount of Rs.1 lakh drawn from his account, in favour of the complainant, which when presented was returned by the bank as per Ext.P-2 memo dated 23.3.2014 on account of insufficiency of funds. Thereupon, the complainant had sent statutory demand notice in terms of proviso (b) of Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. As per Ext.P-3 statutory demand notice dated 29.4.2014, was sent by registered post, and was duly served on the accused to which the accused had sent Ext.P-6 notice dated 12.5.2014 denying the transaction and the execution of the cheque, etc. Thereupon, the complainant has proceeded to institute the instant complaint, which led to the conduct of the trial.