IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl Rev Pet No. 76 of 1999()
1. THOMAS
... Petitioner
Vs
1. GRACY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.RAVINDRAN
For Respondent :SRI.P.V.BABY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.R.UDAYABHANU
Dated :18/06/2007
O R D E R
K.R.UDAYABHANU, J
---------------------------------------------
Crl.R.P.No.76 of 1999
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of June, 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 undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
2. It is the case of the complainant that the accused
issued Ext. P1 and P2 series of 3 cheques towards discharge of
liability to the complainant society for having purchased
coconuts and that when the cheques were presented the same
got bounced for want of funds in the account of the accused. The
lawyer notice was returned unclaimed.
3. The evidence adduced in the matter consisted the
testimony of PWs’ 1 and 2 and Exts. P1 to P10. PW1, the
secretary of the society and PW2, the Bank Manager has proved
the documents produced. Exts. P8 and P9 are the extracts of the
account of the accused in the banks. PW1 has testified that the
notice was sent in the correct address and the same was
returned unclaimed. The contention of the revision petitioner is
that as notice has not been served the statutory stipulation with
CRRP76/1999 Page numbers
respect to the sending of notice demanding payment has not
been complied with. It is also contented that revision petitioner/
accused had sent a lawyer notice demanding return of the
cheques. According to him, he had paid the amount and the
practice as admitted by PW1 is that cheque used to be issued for
the amounts due and when payment is made the cheques used to
be returned. According to the accused it was the blank cheque
that was issued is denied by PW1. PW1 has deposed with respect
to the execution of the cheque. The lawyer notice allegedly sent
by the accused demanding the return of notice has not been
produced. Of course, PW1 has admitted the receipt of the same
when the above was put to her in the cross examination. It is
pointed out by the counsel for the respondent/complainant that
the above lawyer notice was issued subsequent to the institution
of the complainant. No defence evidence has been adduced to
rebut the statutory presumptions. The answers of PW1 in the
cross examination is not sufficient to rebut the statutory
presumptions. In the circumstances, I find no reasons to
interfere in the findings of the court below. The conviction is
confirmed.
CRRP76/1999 Page numbers
4. 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.79,500/- and
in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.
Revision petitioner is granted two months’ time to pay the
amount of compensation, less the amount deposited if any. The
amount in deposit can be withdrawn by the complainant. The
revision petitioner shall appear before the Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court, Paravoor on 4.9.2007 to receive the sentence.
The criminal revision petition is disposed of as above.
K.R.UDAYABHANU,
JUDGE
csl