The courts upheld the conviction for dishonour of cheques under Section 138, confirming the sufficiency of evidence.

ORDER

The concurrent findings of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Kollam, and the Additional Sessions Court-II, Kollam, in S.T.No.130/2006 and Crl.Appeal No.185/2007 respectively, convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act , 1881, are under challenge in this revision.

2. The prosecution case relates to the dishonour of three cheques executed and issued by the petitioner to the complainant, and his failure to make payment of the cheque amounts, even after the receipt of the statutory notice intimating the dishonour of the cheque, and calling upon the payment of the amounts covered by the cheques.

3. Before the trial court, the representative of the complainant firm was examined as PW1, and 10 documents were brought on record as Exts.P1 to P10. The petitioner/accused did not opt to adduce any defence evidence. After analysing the aforesaid evidence, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the petitioner/accused committed the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act , and accordingly sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 9 months, and fine of Rs.96,000/-with a further direction to pay the amount of fine, if realised, as compensation to the complainant under Section 357(1) Cr.P.C. Though the petitioner challenged the aforesaid verdict in appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and modified the sentence to imprisonment till the rising of the court, with a further direction to pay a fine of Rs.48,000/- as compensation to the complainant. It was also directed that, in default of payment of compensation, the petitioner will undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months. Aggrieved by the above verdicts of the courts below, the petitioner is here before this Court with this revision.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the complainant/first respondent.

5. On going through the case records as well as the findings of the courts below, it appears that the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have rightly appreciated the evidence on record and arrived at the finding that the petitioner committed the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act . The Appellate Court had rightly modified the sentence awarded by the Trial Court, by limiting imprisonment till the rising of Court and also, by reducing the compensation amount to Rs.48,000/-. There is absolutely no reason to interfere with the judgment rendered by the Appellate Court in the above regard. Needless to say, the revision filed by the petitioner can only be dismissed.

In the result, the revision stands dismissed.

sd/