Revision petitioner is the accused in a case filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Devikulam alleging an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ( in short 'the N.I Act').
2. Gist of the complaint is as follows :
The accused/revision petitioner borrowed an amount of Rs.30,000/- from the complainant and in discharge of that liability, he issued Ext.P1 cheque on 10-07-1998 drawn on his account. When the cheque was presented for collection, it was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the accused. Thereafter, the complainant/respondent caused to issue a statutory notice. In spite of receipt of notice, the accused did not send any reply. The court below examined two witnesses on the side of the complainant and marked five documents. There was no defence evidence.
3. On appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found that the revision petitioner is guilty of the offence alleged against him. This was challenged in appeal before the Sessions Court, Thodupuzha in Crl.Appeal No.50/2000. After reconsidering the entire evidence, the lower appellate court also confirmed the conviction of the revision petitioner.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused and the learned counsel for the complainant/respondent.
5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that in spite of repeated letters, there was no instruction from the respondent/complainant. I have carefully gone through the materials placed before me in this revision.
6. PW1 is the complainant. He testified in terms with the averments in the complaint. In spite of cross examination, no reason is brought out to disbelieve him. PW1 proved all the material documents relating to dishonour of cheque.
7. PW2 is the Bank Manager, who testified that there was no sufficient funds in the account of the accused to honour Ext.P1 cheque.
8. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the accused, after receipt of notice, did not even care to send a reply in this case. I find that the courts below correctly appreciated the evidence and found the revision petitioner guilty under Section 138 of the N.I Act. At the time when he was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, he has no case that he did not execute the cheque. The contentions now raised in the revision are after thoughts. The lower appellate court also considered the aspects correctly. I find no reason to interfere with the findings of the courts below. The revision petition is devoid of any merit. Hence, it is dismissed.
All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed.
Sd/- A.HARIPRASAD, amk JUDGE.