Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The accused in S.T.No.87/2002 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Kanjirappally is the revision petitioner herein. The case was taken on file on the basis of a private complaint filed by the first respondent/complainant, against the revision petitioner alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

2. The case of the complainant in the complaint was that the revision petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- on 7.12.2010 agreeing to repay the same within three months and also issued Ext.P1 cheque with the same date requesting to represent the cheque after three months. Since the revision petitioner did not pay the amount, the cheque when presented was dishonoured for the reason funds insufficient vide Ext.P2 dishonour memo, which was intimated to the complainant by his banker vide Ext.P3 intimation letter. The complainant issued Ext.P5 notice to the revision petitioner vide Ext.P6 postal receipt intimating dishonour and demanding payment. But that was returned with the endorsement unclaimed after intimation evidenced by Ext.P4 returned notice. But the revision petitioner had not paid the amount. So he had committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act .Hence the complaint.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor supported the concurrent findings of the court below.

7. The case of the complainant in the complaint was that the revision petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- and in discharge of that liability, he had issued Ext.P1 cheque with date 7.12.2010 on the date of borrowal of the amount itself with a request to present the cheque after three months. The case of the revision petitioner was that there was another case between them as S.T.No.113/2009 and that was compromised and since he had not paid interest of Rs.5,000/- as agreed, the present complaint was filed. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant himself was examined as PW1. He had deposed in support of his case in the complaint. Though he was cross examined at length, nothing was brought out to discredit his evidence on material aspects. Further, the case of the revision petitioner was that the cheque given in the earlier case S.T.113/2009 was misused when he did not pay the amount as agreed between them when it was compromised is unbelievable. Further, he did not adduce any evidence to prove this fact as well. Notice issued was returned with the endorsement unclaimed in spite of intimation given. All these circumstances goes against the revision petitioner and in the absence of any evidence adduced on the side of the revision petitioner to rebut the presumption under section 139 of the Act, the courts below were perfectly justified in relying on the evidence of PW1 and convicting the revision petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the Act and the concurrent findings of the court below on this aspect do not call for any interference.