ABDUL RAFEEQUE Vs. NANU MASTER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is accused in Summary Trial Case, S.T.No. 426/2011 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Tirur, for offence punishable under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, instituted on the basis of the complaint filed by the 1 st respondent (complainant). The trial court as per the impugned judgment dated 8.6.2015 had convicted the petitioner and had sentenced him to undergo imprisonment till rising of the court and to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant under Sec.357(3) of the Cr.P.C and in default thereof, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 3 months. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner had preferred Crl.Appeal No.197/2015 before the appellate Sessions Court concerned (Court of Sessions Judge, Manjeri). The appellate court as per the impugned appellate judgment dated 12.7.2017 had upheld the conviction and had also confirmed the sentence, thereby dismissed the appeal. It is aggrieved by the said concurrent findings of both the courts below that the petitioner has preferred the instant revision petition by taking recourse to the remedies available under Sec.397 read with Sec.401 of the Cr.P.C.

(2.) Heard Sri.J.R.Prem Navaz, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner (accused), Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Prosecutor appearing for R-2 State. In the nature of the order that is proposed to be passed in this petition, notice to R-1 (complainant) will stand dispensed with.

(3.) The gist of the allegations in the complainant is that on 4.12.2010, the accused had borrowed an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs from the complainant with the promise to pay back the said amount within one month for carrying out his house construction and, in discharge of the said liability, the accused had on 4.1.2011 issued the instant Ext.P-1 cheque dated 4.1.2011 for Rs.2 lakhs drawn from his account and payable in favour of the complainant. The cheque when presented was dishonoured on the ground of insufficiency of funds as per Ext.P-2 memo dated 18.2.2011. Thereupon, the complainant had issued Ext.P-3 statutory demand notice dated 23.2.2011 by virtue of the provisions contained in Sec.138 proviso (b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, thereby calling upon the accused to pay off the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque in question within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. That the said notice sent by registered post was duly received by the accused as per Exts.P-4 and P-5 and he had not responded to the same. That after following the requisite formalities, the complainant had instituted the instant complaint, which led to the conduct of the trial.