SARANYA S.R. Vs. LENTHAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused who stands convicted for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in C.C.No.18/2017 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-IV, Alappuzha, as confirmed in Crl.A.No.22/2018, of the Sessions Court, Alappuzha, has preferred this revision.

(2.) According to the complainant, the accused borrowed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) on 20.07.2016, and towards the discharge of that debt a cheque was executed and delivered. It was presented for collection, but was returned since there was no sufficient funds in the account. A statutory notice was issued, which was returned along with acknowledgment card as unclaimed. Since the amount was not paid, the complaint was laid. Accused appeared and demanded trial. On the side of the complainant PW1 and PW2 were examined and Exts.P1 to P6 were marked. There was no defence evidence. The Court below found the accused guilty convicted and sentence to pay a fine of Rs.3,00,000/-(Rupees Three Lakhs only) and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. This was challenged in appeal. The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence. This is challenged in the revision.

(3.) Challenging the conviction, the accused contended that the source was not established. It was also stated that PW1 could not sufficiently prove the due execution of the cheque and the existence of a legally enforceable debt. Both the Courts have evaluated the evidence of PW1, and found in favour of the complainant. PW1 had asserted that accused delivered the cheque. It was also stated that, it was written in the handwriting of the person who had accompanied the accused. PW1 was cross examined regarding the source. An explanation was offered that the amount was paid by the complainant with the funds received by selling the gold ornaments. It is true that there is no supporting evidence, but the Courts below have held that since the amount is not very huge, the source need to be proved by documentary evidence. This was also found to be unnecessary since even the accused had a suggestion in the cross examination that the cheque was issued as security to a loan of Rs.50,000/-, borrowed by the husband of the accused from the complainant.