ASHOKAN K.K. Vs. ABDUL RAZAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the accused for the offence punishable under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in C.C.No.1/2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Perambra, instituted on the basis of a complaint filed by the 1 st respondent herein. Ext.P-2 dishonoured dated 12.10.2012 is for Rs.2,50,000/-. The trial court as per the impugned judgment rendered on 17.2.2017 has convicted the petitioner for the above said offence and has sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 5 months and to pay compensation of Rs.2.5 lakhs under Sec.357(3) of the Cr.P.C and in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. Aggrieved thereby the accused had preferred Crl.A.No.98/2017 before the appellate Sessions Court, Kozhikode. The appellate court concerned (Court of Additional Sessions Judge-I, Kozhikode), as per the impugned judgment rendered on 12.6.2017 has confirmed the conviction but has modified the substantive sentence of simple imprisonment for 5 months by reducing the same to imprisonment till the rising of the court and also confirmed the compensation amount of Rs.2.5 lakhs with default sentence clause of simple imprisonment for 2 months. It is aggrieved by the judgments of courts below, that the petitioner has preferred the instant Crl.R.P by taking recourse to the remedy available under Sec.397 r/w Sec.401 of the Cr.P.C.

(2.) Heard Sri.K.M.Sathyanatha Menon, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner-accused, Smt.M.Shajna, learned counsel appearing for the 1 st respondent-complainant and Sri.Jestin Mathew, learned Prosecutor appearing for R-2 State.

(3.) The brief of the case of the complainant is to the effect that the accused and the father-in-law of the complainant were business partners and friends and on the basis of the said acquaintance, the accused in the 1st week of September, 2012 had requested the complainant to advance an amount of Rs.3 lakhs as loan for his business purpose with the promise to return the same within a month. That subsequently, on 8.9.2012, the complainant advanced an amount of Rs.2.5 lakhs to the accused as loan and since the amount was not repaid by the accused within the promised period, the complainant had demanded the same and later, the accused came to the house of the complainant on 11.10.2012 and executed and issued Ext.P-2 chequebearing No.490336 dated 12.10.2012 for Rs.2.5 lakhs drawn from his account and payable in favour of the complainant in the presence of the complainant's nephew, one Sadiq Rahman, and the cheque when presented resulted in dishonour. That after issuance of statutory demand notice as per Ext.P-5, the complainant has instituted the above complaint which has resulted in the conduct of the trial. During the trial, the complainant examined PW-1 (power of attorney holder of the complainant) and himself examined as PW-2 and marked Exts.P-1 to P-8 documents. The defence has adduced oral evidence through DW-1 and produced Ext.D-1.