The dishonor of cheque constitutes an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act when the complainant presents sufficient evidence to support the liability.

ORDER

This revision petition has been filed challenging the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short "NI Act")

2. The 2^nd respondent filed a private complaint against the petitioner before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thodupuzha (for short 'the trial court') alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. According to the complainant, the accused owed him a sum of Rs.7 lakhs in a land transaction and towards the payment of the said debt, he issued Ext.P3 cheque, which on presentation was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. Even though statutory notice under (b) of NI Act was issued, there was no compliance. Hence, the prosecution was launched.

3. On the side of the complainant, the complainant himself gave evidence as PW1. Exts.P1 to P9 were marked. On the side of the defence, two witnesses were examined as DW1 and DW2. After the trial, the trial court found the petitioner guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a compensation of Rs.7 lakhs to the 2^nd respondent under Section 357(3) of Cr.PC, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence of the trial court before the III Additional Sessions Court, Thodupuzha in Crl.Appeal No.137/2016 (for short 'the appellate court'). The appellate court confirmed the conviction and reduced the substantial sentence till the rising of the court retaining the compensation amount and default sentence. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgments of the trial court as well as the appellate court.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

There is no appearance for the 2^nd respondent.

5. To prove the case of the complainant, he himself gave evidence as PW1. He gave evidence that Ext.P3 cheque was issued by the accused in his favour to discharge the liability in connection with a land transaction. To prove the land transaction, Exts.P1 and P2 agreements were produced and marked. Even though PW1 was cross examined in length, nothing tangible could be extracted from his testimony to discredit his version. The complainant had succeeded in proving the transaction, issuance and execution of the cheque. No legally acceptable evidence has been adduced by the accused to rebut the presumption available to the complainant under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act. The trial court as well as the appellate court had concurrently found that the complainant had succeeded in proving the case under Section 138 of the NI Act beyond reasonable doubt. It is settled that re-appreciation of evidence is not permissible in revision. Hence, I see no reason to interfere with the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court as well as the appellate court.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner may be given twelve months' time to deposit the compensation. Taking into account the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is given nine months' time to appear before the trial court to receive the imprisonment and to deposit the fine amount.

The criminal revision petition is disposed of as above.