VIJAYA KUMARI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced 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 submitted that the evidence of PW1 and PW2 is not sufficient to prove the execution of Ext.P1 cheque by the revision petitioner and hence the conviction and sentence passed by the courts below, cannot be sustained. It is stated in the complaint that the revision petitioner borrowed an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the complainant on 2.9.2006 and simultaneously, handed over a cheque to the complainant. The revision petitioner had a contention that the husband of the revision petitioner was conducting a chitty, in which PW1 was a subscriber. In connection with the amount to be paid to PW1 in connection with the said chitty, the husband of the revision petitioner handed over the cheque in question to PW1 as a blank signed cheque. Since the husband of the revision petitioner could not pay the amount due to PW1, the property in the name of the revision petitioner and her husband was alienated to the daughter of PW1. However, the cheque was not returned to the revision petitioner. Thereafter, the said cheque had been mis-utilised by the complainant to file the present complaint.