AKKARAMMAL MOHAMMED Vs. P. DAMODARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against a concurrent verdict of guilty and conviction in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The cheque is for an amount of Rs. 25,000/ -. It bears the date 08/05/1995. Signature in the cheque is admitted. Dishonour is also not disputed.

(2.) THE complainant examined himself as PW1 and proved Exts.P1 to P5. Notice of demand though duly received and acknowledged did not evoke any response. The accused did not adduce any defence evidence. The courts below concurrently came to the conclusion that the complainant has succeeded in establishing all the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I Act. Accordingly they proceeded to pass the impugned concurrent judgments. The trial court imposed a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/ -. That sentence was modified by the appellate court. The petitioner now faces a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/ - and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. No direction for payment of compensation is issued at all. Called upon to explain the nature of the challenge which the petitioner wants to mount against the impugned concurrent judgments, the learned Counsel for the petitioner assails the impugned order on the following grounds only:

(3.) NO other contentions are raised. I am satisfied that all the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act are proved. It is unnecessary to advert to other facts and circumstances in this order. I shall straightaway proceed to consider the first ground of challenge.