SYAMALA Vs. STATE OF KERALA & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the courts below under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

(2.) Heard.

(3.) The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has submitted that the evidence of PW1 is not sufficient to prove the execution of Ext. P1 cheque and in the said circumstances, the conviction and sentence passed by the courts below cannot be sustained. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, who is the complainant before the court below, on the other hand, has submitted that the evidence of PW1 is sufficient to prove the execution of Ext. P1 cheque. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent also relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Beena v. Muniyappan [2001 KHC 832=AIR 2001 SC 2895] and argued that in complaints filed under Section 138 of the N.I.Act, the court has to presume that the cheque had been issued for a debt or liability and the burden of proving that a cheque was not issued for a debt or liability is on the accused.