The legal enforcement of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is affirmed with an emphasis on the sufficiency of evidence and statutory notice requirements.

ORDER

The concurrent verdicts of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Irinjalakuda, and the Additional Sessions Court, Irinjalakuda, in S.T.No.365/2005 and in Crl.Appeal No.47/2007 respectively, convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act , 1881, are under challenge in this revision petition. The Trial Court sentenced the petitioner to imprisonment till the rising of Court with a further direction to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant. The Appellate Court upheld the aforesaid verdict of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. According to the petitioner, the Trial Court and the Appellate Court went wrong in convicting and sentencing the petitioner.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

3. The case arose out of the dishonour of a cheque dated

29.07.2003 for an amount of Rs.50,000/- issued by the petitioner to the complainant in discharge of a debt, which he owed to the complainant. According to the complainant, the petitioner did not care to make payment of the cheque amount despite the issuance of statutory notice under Section 138 (b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act . The Trial Court dealt with in detail the evidence tendered by the complainant through his testimony as PW1, and the documents marked as Exts.P1 to P5. The evidence adduced by the petitioner as DW1 was also taken into account by the Trial Court. After a detailed evaluation of the aforesaid evidence, the Trial Court found that the complainant successfully established that the petitioner committed the offence under of the . The Appellate Court made a re-appraisal of the aforesaid evidence, and concurred with the finding of the Trial Court. On going through the reasoning adopted by the courts below in the impugned judgments, and also the facts and circumstances of the case as borne out of the records, I am of the view that there is absolutely no scope for interference with the aforesaid concurrent findings of the courts below in exercise of the revisional powers of this Court. Needless to say, the conviction recorded and the sentence awarded by the courts below, are liable to be upheld.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is reeling under severe financial constraints, and that a period of six months time may be given to him for making payment of the compensation amount ordered by the courts below. The request in the above regard appears to be justifiable.

In the result, the revision petition stands disposed of as follows:

1) The concurrent findings of the courts below, convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act , are hereby upheld.

2) The petitioner is granted a period of six months time from today to surrender before the Trial Court, to undergo imprisonment till the rising of Court and to make payment of the compensation amount of Rs.50,000/-

The Registry shall transmit a copy of this order, along with the case records, to the Trial Court for the enforcement of the revised sentence, in accordance with the directions of this Court.

sd/