( 1 ) THE challenge in the revision is with regard to the concurrent findings of the additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offence), Ernal ulam and the sessions Judge, Ernakulars ath regard to the conviction entered against the petitioner in C. C. No. 89 of 1997 of the former court for the offence under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act (for short the Act ) and the modified sentence imposed by the Sessions judge, Ernakulam, viz. , imprisonment till rising of court and fine of Rs. 32,000/- (in default Simple Imprisonment for two months ). The direction that Rs. 29,000/- out of the fine amount should go to the complainant is also challenged.

( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the conviction is unsustainable for the reason that the complainant failed to produce before the court the memo of dishonour issued by the drawee bank or any other clinching evidence to show that Ext. P-1 cheque was actually dishonoured for want of funds. Ext. P-2 produced in the case is only an intimation from the complainant s bank and that cannot be relied upon to show that the cheque bounced for want of funds.

( 3 ) I find absolutely no merit in the petitioner s conten

Click Here to Read the rest of this document