IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1762 of 2009()
1. A.K.RAVEENDRAN, S/O.KRISHNAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. A.V.ABDUL KHADER, S/O.HAMZA,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
For Petitioner :SRI.P.SAMSUDIN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :05/06/2009
O R D E R
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
--------------------------------------
Crl.R.P.No.1762 of 2009
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 5th day of June, 2009.
ORDER
Notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with in view of the order I am
proposing to make and which is not prejudicial to him. Public Prosecutor takes
notice for respondent No.2.
2. This revision is in challenge of concurrent findings entered by the
courts below that the cheque issued by the petitioner in favour of respondent
No.1 for the discharge of liability to the tune of Rupees one lakh was
dishonoured for the reason that account was closed and that in spite of
dishonour intimation and demand petitioner did not discharge the liability and
thereby committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act (for short, “the Act”). According to respondent No.1, petitioner
borrowed Rupees one lakh from him on a promise to repay the amount within
one month, petitioner did not repay the amount and on respondent No.1
demanding repayment, petitioner issued cheque dated 1.10.2005. That cheque
was dishonoured for the reason that account was closed on 2.8.2005. Notice
was issued to the petitioner intimating dishonour and demanding payment.
Petitioner sent Ext.P6, reply. Respondent No.1 gave evidence as PW1 and
proved Exts.P1 to P6. Ext.P1 is the cheque dated 1.10.2005. Dishonour of the
cheque for the reason above stated is proved by Ext.P2. It is not the case of
Crl.R.P.No.1762/2009
2
the petitioner that his account was closed otherwise than as per instruction given
by him. Issue and service of notice are proved by Exts.P3 series to P5. Ext.P6
is the reply. Contention raised by the petitioner is that he had borrowed only
Rs.10,000/- from respondent No.1 and at the time of that transaction a signed
blank cheque was given, he repaid the amount but respondent No.1 did not
return the cheque. Courts below were not inclined to accept that contention. So
far as the due execution of the cheque is concerned, it is not disputed by
petitioner that Ext.P1 contains his signature though that by itself did not
amount to admission or proof of due execution. But that went a long way in
proving the due execution of the cheque. There is also evidence of respondent
No.1 as PW1 as to the transaction and execution of the cheque. In fact,
petitioner also did not dispute that he entrusted that cheque to respondent No.1
though according to him, in signed blank form in connection with the borrowal of
Rs.10,000/-. Petitioner did not adduce any evidence to show that he had
borrowed only Rs.10,000/- or that, Ext.P1 was in signed blank form and that
inspite of discharging that liability, respondent No.1 refused to return the
cheque. Petitioner did not take any steps to get back the cheque inspite of
alledgedly discharging the liability. The mere fact that a reply is sent is not
sufficient to hold that evidence of respondent No.1 as to the due execution of the
cheque cannot be accepted.
3. It is contended by learned counsel that at any rate as dishonour of
the cheque was for the reason that account was closed, prosecution under
Section 138 of the Act will not lie. Learned counsel placed reliance on the
Crl.R.P.No.1762/2009
3
decision of the Karnataka High Court in Nagaraja Upadhya v. Sanjeevan (2008
(2) KLT Short Note 20 (case No.24). There, it was observed that on the date of
issuance of cheque, account of the accused was closed at the instance of the
bank and not at the instance of the accused and hence, Section 138 of the Act is
not attracted.
4. In this case petitioner has no case that account was closed not at
his instance but at the instance of the bank. There is also no evidence in that
line. Moreover, the evidence which the courts below accepted would show that
the account was closed on 2.8.2005 while petitioner issued the cheque on
1.10.2005. That means, there was no account in the name of petitioner as on
1.10.005. In other words, there was no money in the account of the petitioner
mentioned in the cheque on the day that cheque was issued and was presented
for encashment. If that be so, the contention that the offence under Section
138 of the Act is not made out cannot be entertained. On the evidence on
record, I do not find reason to interfere with the conviction of the petitioner for
offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act.
5. So far as sentence is concerned, learned magistrate awarded
simple imprisonment for two months and directed the petitioner to pay
compensation of Rupees one lakh with a default sentence of two months.
Appellate court modified the substantive sentence to simple imprisonment till
rising of the court but retained the direction for payment of compensation and
the default sentence. There is no reason to interfere with the sentence as
modified by the appellate court and the direction for payment of compensation
Crl.R.P.No.1762/2009
4
and the default sentence provided.
6. Learned counsel requested that petitioner may be granted four
months time to deposit compensation in the trial court. It is stated that petitioner
is not able to raise the sum of Rupees one lakh immediately. Considering the
amount involved and the circumstances stated by the learned counsel,
petitioner is granted three months time to deposit compensation in the trial court.
Resultantly, this revision petition is dismissed. Petitioner is granted three
months’ time from this day to deposit compensation in the trial court. It is made
clear that it will be sufficient compliance with direction for payment of
compensation if petitioner paid the compensation to respondent No.1 through
his counsel in the trial court and respondent No.1 filed a statement in the trial
court through his counsel acknowledging the receipt of the compensation within
the aforesaid time. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 10.9.2009 to
receive the sentence.
Crl.M.A.No.5390 of 2009 will stand dismissed.
THOMAS P.JOSEPH,
Judge.
cks