A P ABOOBACKER Vs. T V CHANDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Notice to 1st respondent is dispensed with in view of the order I am proposing to pass in the revision petition. Learned Public Prosecutor takes notice for 2nd respondent.

(2.) According to 1st respondent who is the proprietor of M/s.Deepa Gold Palace, Kasaragod, petitioner owed Rs. 1 Lakh to him and for the discharge of that liability issued Ext.P1 cheque dated 20.4.2006, the cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds as proved by Exts.P2 and P3 and in spite of statutory notice served on the petitioner (proved through Exts.P5 and P6), he did not pay the amount. 1st respondent gave evidence as PW1 and testified to his case. The contention raised by the petitioner is that he had not issued any cheque to 1st respondent and no amount is due from him to the 1st respondent. Courts below accepted the evidence of 1st respondent and found in favour of due execution of the cheque. That finding is challenged in this revision. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that there is no sufficient evidence for due execution of the cheque.

(3.) It is not disputed and proved as well that Ext.P1 contained the signature of the petitioner and that the cheque was drawn on his account. In that situation, it was for the petitioner to explain the circumstances under which according to him, the signed cheque leaf happened to be in the custody of 1st respondent. Apart from some suggestion put to the 1st respondent in the course of evidence, there is no material on record proving or probabilising those suggestions. Petitioner also failed to reply to the notice served on him. These circumstances have been taken into account by the courts below to hold in favour of due execution of the cheque. I find nothing illegal, irregular or improper in the finding entered by the courts below requiring interference in this revision.