In a revision petition against a conviction under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, the High Court will not reappreciate evidence unless the lower court's findings are perverse, and statutory presumptions under Section 139 remain valid if the accused fails to provide credible evidence to rebut them.

ORDER :

JOBIN SEBASTIAN, J.

The challenge in this revision petition is directed against the conviction and sentence imposed on the revision petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, “the N.I. Act”).

2. The revision petitioners are the accused in C.C. No. 826/2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court (N.I. Act Cases), Ernakulam.

3. The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:

The complainant is a proprietary concern. The first accused is also a proprietary concern represented by the second accused, who is its proprietor. According to the complainant, the accused had agreed to supply glass materials to the complainant for a total consideration of Rs.10,00,524/-. Pursuant to the said agreement, the complainant paid the entire amount in advance to the accused. However, the accused failed to supply the materials as agreed. Subsequently, the accused acknowledged their liability and agreed to refund the amount received from the complainant. Accordingly, the accused repaid a sum of Rs.5,00,524/-. Towards discharge of the balance liability of Rs.5,00,000/-, the accused issued Ext.P1 cheque in favour of the complainant. When the cheque was presented for encashment through the complainant's banker, it was dishonoured and returned unpaid with the endorsement “Funds Insufficient”. Thereafter, the complainant caused a statutory demand notice to be issued to the accused, informing them of the dishonour of the cheque and demanding payment of the cheque amount within the prescribed period. Despite receipt of the said notice, the accused failed to make payment of the amount covered by the cheque. It was in the above circumstances that the complaint came to be filed alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

4. During the trial, on the side of the complainant, the proprietor representing the complainant's concern was examined as PW1. The documents produced by the complainant were marked as Exts.P1 to P6. On the side of the defence, DW1 and DW2 were examined, and Exts.D1 to D5 were marked in evidence.

5. Upon an appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial court found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and convicted them accordingly. The second accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,00,000/-. In default of payment of the fine, the second accused was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The fine amount, if realised, was ordered to be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

6. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the accused preferred Crl. Appeal No.324/2017 before the Sessions Court. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Ernakulam, who heard the appeal, allowed the same in part. While confirming the finding of conviction, the appellate court modified the sentence and directed the second accused to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs.5,00,000/-. The fine amount, if realised, was ordered to be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In default of payment of the fine, the accused was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent. The records have also been perused.

8. The learned counsel f