MINI THYAGARAJAN Vs. SHOBHANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REVISION petitioner is the accused and first respondent the complainant in C. C. 188/2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, alappuzha. Petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable instruments Act. Revision petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence before Sessions Court, alappuzha in Crl. A. 126/2008. Learned Sessions judge on reappreciation of evidence confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of court and a fine for the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque with a direction to pay the fine on realisation to first respondent as compensation under section 357 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Revision is filed challenging the conviction and sentence.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for revision petitioner was heard.

(3.) THE argument of the learned counsel is that ext. P1 cheque was issued not towards the discharge of any existing liability and instead was issued by her husband in a transaction with first respondent and therefore conviction is not sustainable. Learned counsel also argued that the courts below should have found that no notice as provided under section 138 (b) of Negotiable Instruments Act was sent as Ext. P5 notice was not refused to be received by the revision petitioner and the postman was not examined.