IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl Rev Pet No. 384 of 2000()
1. B.SANKAPPA ALA
... Petitioner
Vs
1. F.J.RODRIGUES
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER
For Respondent :SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.R.UDAYABHANU
Dated :26/10/2007
O R D E R
K.R.UDAYABHANU, J
---------------------------------------------
Crl.R.P.No.384 of 2000
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 26th day of October, 2007
O R D E R
The revision petitioner who is the accused stands convicted
for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three
months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,55,000/- and in default, to
undergo simple imprisonment for three months.
2. The case of the complainant is that the accused had
borrowed amounts from him and towards discharge of the
liability issued the impugned cheque dated 6.4.1996 for a sum
of Rs.4,70,000/- and when it was presented for collection the
same was dishonoured for want of funds in the account of the
accused. The lawyer notice issued was received but there was
no reply nor was any amount paid.
3. The evidence adduced in the matter consisted of the
testimony of PWs’ 1 and 2 and Exts. P1 to P6.
4. PW1 has testified as to the execution of the cheque
and dishonour for want of funds in the account of the accused.
CRRP384/2000 2
PW2, the bank manager, has proved Ext. P6 ledger extract of
the account of the accused to establish the fact that the cheque
was returned for want of funds in the account of the accused.
PW1 has proved Exts. P1 to P5, the cheque, memo received,
intimation, copy of the lawyer notice and postal
acknowledgment. The defence case is that the accused had sold
his son’s jeep to the complainant and the signed blank cheque
leaves kept in the jeep was taken by the complainant and
misused. It is also suggested in the cross examination that the
complainant was a partner in the Abkari business of the accused.
PW1 has denied the same. The alleged transaction of the sale of
the jeep was also denied by PW1. No rebuttal evidence has been
adduced to dislodge the statutory presumption. He has also
stated in the cross examination that the amount was given to the
accused by taking a loan from the account of his brother from
Canara Bank, Bangalore branch. It is the contention that the
above documents were not produced. I find that the accused has
no case that the complainant who is engaged in the business of
vessels as brought out in the cross examination that the accused
is a person who is not having means to lend the amount. In the
CRRP384/2000 3
circumstances, I find no reason to deviate from the concurrent
findings of the court below. The conviction is confirmed.
5. Considering the plea of the counsel for the revision
petitioner, the sentence is modified to imprisonment till the
rising of the court and to pay a compensation of Rs.5,55,000/- to
the complainant and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment
for three months. The revision petitioner is granted four months’
time to remit the amount of compensation. He shall appear
before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kasaragod on
26.2.2008 to receive the sentence.
The criminal revision petition is disposed of accordingly.
K.R.UDAYABHANU,
JUDGE
csl