ABOOBACKER Vs. ISMAIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition is directed against a concurrent verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence in a prosecution under S.138 of the N.I. Act.

(2.) The cheque is for an amount of Rs. 2,30,000/-. The signature in the cheque is admitted. That it was handed over by the accused to the complainant is also not disputed. While the complainant alleged that the cheque was handed over to him towards payment of amounts for articles supplied, the accused contended that it was handed over when a transaction in pepper was anticipated. In short, the accused contended that the cheque was issued not for the discharge of any legally enforceable debt or liability, but it was handed over as security for an intended transaction. The complainant examined himself as PW 1 and proved Exts.P1 to P5. Accused examined DWs 1 and 2. DW2 is the accused himself and DW1, a friend of his -- to speak about the alleged transaction.

(3.) Courts below concurrently came to the conclusion that the evidence of PW 1 can safely be accepted and that the evidence of DWs 1 and 2, which the courts found is inter se contradictory, is not worthy of acceptance. Courts drew assurance for this conclusion from the circumstance that the notice of demand, though duly received and acknowledged, was not responded to. It is in these circumstances that the courts below proceeded to pass the impugned judgments. While the Trial Court convicted the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months, the appellate Court reduced the substantive sentence of imprisonment to one of simple imprisonment for three months. Both Courts directed payment of only an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation. No satisfactory reasons are shown as to why only an amount of Rs.10,000/- is granted as compensation when the cheque amount is Rs. 2,30,000/-. There is no plea even, of partial discharge. There is no contention that any decree has been passed by a Civil Court in respect of the alleged transaction.