AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.Q. Barkath Ali, J.—This revision is by the accused in C.C. No. 933/1998 on the file of the JFCM Court-I, Hosdurg. He challenges his conviction u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine months which is confirmed in appeal by the Addl. Sessions Judge (Ad Hoc-I), Kasaragod, by judgment dated 17.12.2003 in Crl.A.39/2002.
The case of the revision 1st respondent/complainant as testified by him as PW.1 before the trial court and as stated in the complaint is that the accused borrowed Rs. 2 lakhs from him and to discharge that liability, the accused issued the cheque Ext.P1 dated February 25, 1998 which, when presented for collection, was returned dishonoured for want of sufficiency of funds in the account of the accused in the bank and that in spite of the notice Ext.P3 dated July 1, 1998, the accused did not repay the amount, which is an offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
On receipt of the complaint, the learned Magistrate recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and took cognizance of the offence. The accused when appeared before the CRL. R.P. 821 of 2004 trial court pleaded not guilty to the charge u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. When questioned u/s 313 Cr.P.C. by the trial court, the accused denied the transaction and submitted that the cheque Ext.P1 was actually issued to one Krishnan Master with whom the accused had some transaction and that the complainant has managed to obtain that cheque and filed this false complaint. No defence evidence was adduced.
Heard the counsel for the revision petitioner/accused and the revision 1st respondent/complainant.
The following points arise for consideration:
I. Whether the conviction of the revision petitioner by the trial court u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which is confirmed in appeal, can be sustained?
II. Whether the sentence imposed is excessive or unduly harsh?
POINT NO. I
The revision 1st respondent/complainant as PW.1, testified in terms of the complaint before the trial court. Nothing was brought out during his cross-examination to discredit his evidence. Further, his evidence is supported by Exts.P1 to P4.
The specific case of the revision petitioner/accused when questioned u/s 313 Cr.P.C. and as suggested during the cross-examination of PW1 was that the cheque was issued for Rs. 25000/- to one Krishnan Master with whom the accused had some transaction and that the complainant had managed to file this false complaint against him. No evidence was adduced by the accused to prove his case. That apart, as the accused admitted the execution of the cheque Ext.P1, the presumption Under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is available to the complainant. No evidence was adduced by the accused to rebut the above presumption. Therefore I am of the view that the trial court as well as the lower appellate court are perfectly justified in accepting the evidence of the complainant and coming to the conclusion that the accused has committed an offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore the conviction of the accused u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is confirmed.
POINT NO. II
As regards the sentence, the learned Magistrate imposed a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for nine months. The lower appellate court has confirmed the same i appeal. As the transaction is of the year 1998, I feel that imprisonment till the rising of court and a fine of Rs. 2,10,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment of three months would meet the ends of justice.
In the result, the conviction of the revision petitioner/accused u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is upheld. He is sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of court and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,10,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The fine amount, if realised, shall be paid to the revision 1st respondent/complainant as compensation as provided u/s 357(1) Cr.P.C. Three months time is granted for payment of fine. His bail bonds are cancelled. The accused shall surrender before the trial court on or before October 20, 2010 to suffer the sentence.
The Crl.R.P. is disposed of as found above.