IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER FRIDAY, THE 29TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 475 of 2000() ----------------------------- CRA.262/1998 of IV ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM CC.799/1996 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KOLENCHERRY .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------------------- P.R.HARIHARADASAN, S/o.V.RAMASWAMY IYYER, PULAVATHIL HOUSE, VENNALA. NOW WORKING AT ESTATE DEPARTMENT FACT, COCHIN DIVISION, AMBALAMEDU P.O. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.JAYACHANDRAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/THE STATE & THE COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. K.M.SELMON, S/o. MATHUNNI, VADAKKEKARA MOOLAYIL HOUSE, PUTTUMANOOR KARA, PUTHENCRUZ VILLAGE NOW RESIDING AT VADAKKEKANNAMOOLAYIL HOUSE, PUTTUMANOORKARA, PUTHANCRUZ VILLAGE. 2. THE KERALA STATE REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.LAL GEORGE R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJETH ALI THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/02/2008 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER,J ========================= Crl.R.P.No.475 of 2000 ========================== Dated this the 29th day of February, 2008 ORDER Petitioner was concurrently found guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, by the trial court as well as the Appellate Court. The trial court convicted and sentenced the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.85,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. It was further directed that on realisation of the fine amount, it shall be paid to the complainant as compensation. The above order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court was confirmed by the Sessions court in appeal. Hence this revision petition. 2. The case of the complainant was that the accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.85,000/- from him and issued Ext.P1 cheque in discharge of the said debt. When the cheque was presented for encashment, it was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the accused. Though a statutory notice was issued demanding payment, the accused had failed to discharge the debt. He had also not bothered to Crl.R.P.No.475/2000 2 send any reply to the demand notice. 3. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Assistant Manager of the bank was examined as PW2. Exts.P1 to P6 were also marked on the side of the prosecution. 4. The defence set up by the accused was that he had borrowed a sum of Rs.8,500/- from the complainant and not Rs.85,000/- as alleged by him. According to the accused, at the time of borrowal he had executed a Promissory Note and had also handed over a blank signed cheque to the complainant. The accused further contended that he had repaid the loan amount and taken back the Promissory Note. But the blank signed cheque was refused to be returned by the complainant in spite of demand. 5. The above defence set up by the accused was not accepted by the trial court as well as the Appellate court. I have been taken through the oral and documentary evidence on record. In my view the complainant had established his case satisfactorily. The accused had not adduced any evidence in support of his contentions. There was nothing on record to show that he had borrowed only Rs.8,500/- or that a blank signed Crl.R.P.No.475/2000 3 cheque was handed over by him to the complainant at the time of borrowal. Undoubtedly, the presumption available under Section 118 of the Act was available to the complainant being the drawee of the cheque. Similarly, the accused had not discharged the burden under Section 139 of the Act also. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances, I do not find any merit in the contentions raised by the petitioner. There is no illegality or irregularity in the order impugned. Therefore, the revision petition is dismissed. A.K.BASHEER,JUDGE dvs