IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl Rev Pet No. 2065 of 2007()
1. M.BABU, S/O RAMAN, AGED 35 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SURYA BINDHU, W/O HIROSHI,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.M.V.AMARESAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.R.UDAYABHANU
Dated :06/06/2007
O R D E R
K.R. UDAYABHANU, J
=================================
CRL. R.P. NO. 2065 OF 2007
=================================
Dated this the 6th day of June 2007
O R D E R
The revision petitioner is the accused in S.T No. 204/2004 in the
file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Sulthan Bathery with respect to
the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. The prosecution case is that he had borrowed an amount of
Rs.50,000/- from her during the last week of June, 2003, agreeing to
repay the same within one month and issued the impugned cheque.
The same when presented got dishonoured. The lawyer notice
demanding payment is replied to raising false contentions. The cheque
was dishonoured for want of funds in the account. The evidence
adduced in the matter consisted of the testimony of PW1, Exts. P1 to
P5 and the defence examined DW1.
3. The contention of the revision petitioner is that the complainant
is a house wife and there is no possibility of her lending money to a
stranger whom she has described as a friend of her brother. A
number of discrepancies are in the evidence of PW1 and the same
cannot be relied on to establish the execution of the cheque. The
evidence of DW1 is that he acted as an intermediary and that a sum of
CRL.R.P. NO. 2065/2007 : 2 :
Rs.35,000/- only was borrowed by the revision petitioner and that the
amount was taken from the brother of the complainant and that the
same was repaid. Just on the basis of the oral testimony of PW1 I
find that it cannot be held that the statutory presumptions have been
rebuted. Both the courts below have examined the evidence in detail.
The contention raised herein is that PW1 has testified mistakenly with
respect to the cheque belonging to a particular bank. The above
contention has not been raised before both the courts below. In the
circumstances, I find no reason to deviate from the findings of the
courts below. In the circumstances, the revision petition is dismissed
in limine.
All the same considering the plea of the counsel for the revision
petitioner, the revision petitioner is granted three months time from
today onwards to pay the amount of compensation. The revision
petitioner shall appear before Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Sulthan
Bathery on 05.12.2007 to receive sentence.
K.R. UDAYABHANU, JUDGE.
rv
CRL.R.P. NO. 2065/2007 : 3 :