TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 323
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. Revision petitioner in these cases are the accused in S.T. Nos.367/2018 and 368/2018 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chottanikkara. It was a prosecution initiated by the 1st respondent in these cases against the petitioner alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'N.I.Act') (hereinafter the revision petitioner in these cases is mentioned as accused and the 1st respondent in these cases is mentioned as complainant). 3. The case of the complainant in ST 367/2018 which is narrated in paragraph 2 of the trial court judgment produced in Crl.R.P. 1271/2023 is extracted below :- "The complainant and the accused are contractors and they are friends. The accuse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gistered lawyer notice sent to the office address of the accused was received by him on 12.04.2018. The complainant received the acknowledgment card showing the receipt on 12.04.2018. The registered lawyer notice sent to the residential address of the accused was received by him on 17.4.2018. The complainant received the acknowledgment card showing the receipt on 17.4.2018. But the accused failed to pay the cheque amount and also failed to send a reply notice. The above action of the accused amounts to an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The amount for which the cheque was issued is in discharge of a legally enforceable debt to the complainant. The cheque was dishonoured at South Indian Bank Ltd, Karim....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....when presented. Believing the words, the complainant presented the said cheques through his banker, the South Indian Bank, Karimukal Branch on 23.04.2018. The cheques were returned dishonoured for the reason "Funds Insufficient". The complainant received intimation of dishonour from his South Indian Bank Ltd vide memo dated 27.03.2018. The complainant issued separate registered lawyer notices dated 11.04.2018 to the accused informing the fact of dishonour of cheque and also calling upon to make payment of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only), the amount covered by cheque No.000010, within 15 days from the date of the receipt of notice. The registered lawyer notice sent to the office address of the accused was received by him on 12.04.2018....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tence of one month in both the cases. 6. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the accused filed Crl.A. Nos.185/2021 and 186/2021 and the appeals were considered by the Additional District and Sessions Court, Muvattupuzha. The appellate court confirmed the conviction, but reduced the sentence to simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.4,00,000/- with a default sentence of one month in both the appeals. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, these criminal revision petitions are filed. 7. Heard Adv. Manu Ramachandran, who appeared for the petitioner. I also heard the learned counsel for the 1st respondent. 8. Adv. Manu Ramanchandran submitted that the complainant has not proved the source to lend the amount to the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e cross-examination portion of PW1 to argue that the complainant has no source to lend the amount. But, this Court perused the cross examination portion. The complainant has submitted that he gave Rs.8,00,000/- to the accused when he got payment from the Ray Constructions of Refineries. The complainant has also testified that he also done small contract work in the Refineries. It is the case of the complainant that he was given amount in cash also. The contention of the accused is that the Ray Constructions would never give such bulk amount in cash. If this is the case, it cannot be said that there is no explanation from the side of the complainant regarding his source to lend the amount. He has adduced evidence that he obtained the amount ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....idered the entire evidence and thereafter found that the petitioner was guilty under Section 138 of the NI Act. Therefore, there is nothing to interfere with the conviction imposed under Section 138 of the NI Act. 12. What remains is the sentence imposed on the petitioner. The sentence is simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only) in each case with a default sentence. Admittedly, it is a money transaction which leads to the prosecution. In such circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that a substantive sentence of imprisonment is not necessary. The same can be set aside. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks some time for payment of the fine amount. Therefore, ....