SREELEKHA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced concurrently by the courts below under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the N.I. Act').

(2.) Heard.

(3.) The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has argued that even though the revision petitioner had a contention that the cheque in question was issued as a blank signed cheque to one Mr.Radhakrishnan at the time of borrowing an amount of Rs. 50,000/- from the said Radhakrishnan and the said cheque had been mis-utilised by the complainant to file the present complaint, the courts below did not consider the said aspect and hence the conviction and sentence passed by the courts below cannot be sustained. I have gone through the relevant inputs and I find that apart from the above said contention, there is absolutely no material before the court to indicate that the above contention of the revision petitioner is probable. It is true that the revision petitioner need not adduce any evidence to prove his case. It is sufficient if the revision petitioner is able to prove the case by the the yardstick of preponderance of probabilities and possibilities from the materials on record. In this case, there is absolute nothing on record to indicate that the cheque in question was issued as a blank signed cheque, as contended by the revision petitioner. Therefore, the argument in this regard advanced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner cannot be accepted.