S. SURESH Vs. STATE OF KERALA & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the courts below under Section 138 of the N I Act.

(2.) Heard

(3.) The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has argued that the complainant did not prove the source of income to advance the amount to the revision petitioner and in the said circumstances, the conviction and sentence passed by the courts below cannot be sustained. The learned counsel relied on the decision of the Apex Court in John K Abraham v. Simon C Abraham [2014(1) KLT 90(SC)] to buttress his argument. The revision petitioner also contended that the cheque in question was issued as a blank signed cheque by the revision petitioner as security to the son of the complainant and the said cheque had been misutilised by the complainant to file the present complaint.