DEO KESHAV NAIK Vs. SEBY MARTINS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant/original accused being aggrieved by his conviction for an offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentence of simple imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs. 5,000/-in default simple imprisonment for 15 days, passed by the Judicial magistrate, First Class, Panaji, by Judgment, dated 10-5-2002, in Criminal Case no. 235/oa/98/c and confirmed by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, panaji, by judgment, dated 22nd January 2003, in Criminal Appeal No. 44 of 2002, has filed the present revision assailing the correctness of the judgments of the two courts below.

(2.) THE respondent No. 1/original complainant had filed" Criminal Case no. 235/oa/ 98/c in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Panaji, against the present applicant, for an offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It was stated by the complainant that he runs an advertising agency and had released an advertisement on behalf of the accused in the local newspaper, The accused towards discharge of his liability for payment of the said charges of advertisement had issued cheques to the complainant bearing numbers 0731558, dated 20th february, 1998,0731559, dated 5th March 1998, 0731560, dated 15th March, 1958 and 0731561, dated 25th March 1998, amounting to Rs. 1,05,799/-, drawn on the Bank of Baroda, Calangute Branch. It was further averred by the complainant that the said cheques were returned unpaid on account of insufficiency of funds. After issuance of notice, since no payment had been made, the complainant filed the case. On consideration of the evidence, the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, by his judgment, as aforestated, convicted and sentenced the accused.

(3.) THE applicant/accused, being aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, filed Criminal Appeal No. 44 of 2002, before the IInd Additional sessions Judge, Panaji. The learned lower Appellate Court, on consideration of the evidence, found that there was no defence which had been raised by the applicant/accused and, further, found that the complainant had established the offence beyond reasonable doubt and/thus, dismissed the appeal. The applicant/ accused, being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, has preferred this revision before this Court.