High Court Kerala High Court

N.Unnikrishnan vs K.Pankajakshan on 27 March, 2007

Kerala High Court
N.Unnikrishnan vs K.Pankajakshan on 27 March, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl Rev Pet No. 586 of 2000()



1. N.UNNIKRISHNAN
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. K.PANKAJAKSHAN
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR

                For Respondent  :SRI.K.B.SURESH

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.R.UDAYABHANU

 Dated :27/03/2007

 O R D E R
                             K.R.UDAYABHANU, J

                        ---------------------------------------------

                             CRL.R.P.No.586 of 2000

                         ---------------------------------------------

                    Dated this the 27th day of March, 2007




                                     O R D E R

The revision petitioner stands convicted for the offence

under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and

sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.12,000/- and in default, to undergo

simple imprisonment for three months. It is also ordered that

out of the fine amount, a sum of Rs.10,000/- shall be paid to the

complainant.

2. The prosecution case is that the accused issued

cheque for a sum of Rs.8,000/- towards discharge of liability and

on presentation before the bank, the cheque got dishonoured for

want of funds in the account of the accused and that the lawyer

notice demanding payment was also not responded to. The

evidence adduced in the matter consisted of the testimony of

Pws’ 1 and 2 and Ext. P1 to P5. At the instance of the defence,

DW1 was examined and Ext.D1 reply notice. On consideration of

the evidence adduced in the matter both the courts below have

concurrently found that the accused is guilty of the offence

alleged. The version of the accused that only a sum of Rs.3,500/-

CRRP586/2000 Page numbers

is due to the complainant with respect to the purchase of a lorry

was found not convincing. On a consideration of the evidence

adduced in the matter, I find no reason to interfere in the

findings of the court below being in the relum appreciation of

evidence.

3. In the circumstances, the conviction is confirmed and

the revision petitioner/accused is sentenced to pay a fine of

Rs.10,000/- and the same, if realised, will be paid to PW1, the

complainant.

The revision petition is disposed of as above.

K.R.UDAYABHANU,

JUDGE

csl