IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2011 / 17TH ASHADHA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 742 of 2003() ----------------------------- S.T.393/99 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, THRISSUR CRA.621/2001 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), THRISSUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER/ APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- T.V.SASI,S/O.T.K.VELAYUDHAN, THAZHEKATTIL HOUSE, WARRIYAM ROAD, ARANATTUKARA,THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO SRI.I.J.AUGUSTINE RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT. --------------------------------------- 1. M/S.JAYAPRAKASH KURIES PVT.LTD., THRISSUR-1,REP.BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER P.V.UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O.POORADAN VELAYUDHAN, PULLAZHY VILLAGE,TRICHUR TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, PUZHAKKARA MOHAMMED. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. -------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No. 742 OF 2003 --------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of July, 2011 O R D E R ~~~~~~~ The revision petitioner was prosecuted by the 1st respondent for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ( for short 'NI Act'). The trial court, after summary trial, found the revision petitioner guilty. Accordingly, he was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for one month with direction to pay Rs.16,200/- as compensation to the defacto complainant. Though he preferred Crl.A.621/2001 before the Sessions Judge, Thrissur, he was not successful. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence, this Revision Petition was preferred. 2. I have heard Sri.C.A.Chacko, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and perused the judgments impugned. I find that the 1st respondent through the oral testimony of PW1 supported by Ext.P1 to P6 had succeeded to establish that the revision petitioner was a subscriber in a kuri run by the 1st respondent and a sum of Rs. 16,200/- was due to Crl.R.P. No.742/2003 2 the 1st respondent out of the kuri transaction. In discharge of that liability, Ext.P2 cheque dt.13.3.1998 drawn on Dhanalakshmi Bank, Pushpagiri Branch for the said amount was issued. When presented for collection, it was returned dishonoured for insufficient funds. A lawyer notice, copy of which was marked as Ext.P4, demanding discharge of the liability was caused. Despite the acknowledgment of the lawyer notice demanding discharge of the liability, as evidenced by Ext.P6, the liability was not discharged. The revision petitioner has no good explanation as to how the 1st respondent obtained his cheque. He has not succeeded to rebut the legal presumptions in favour of the 1st respondent that Ext.P1 was drawn for valuable consideration and issued in discharge of the liability. The silence of the revision petitioner after acknowledging the notice demanding discharge of the liability speaks volumes. Had he any good defence, he would have retorted to the notice. 3. In the above circumstance, I find that the courts below had correctly appreciated the evidence and arrived at a Crl.R.P. No.742/2003 3 conclusion of guilt. The conviction under challenge is based upon cogent evidence and requires no interference. Having taken notice that the liability arises out of a kuri transaction, I find that the revision petitioner is entitled to a little leniency in sentence and that sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the court along with a fine of Rs.20,000/- would meet the ends of justice. 4. In the result the revision petition is disposed of as follows: The conviction under challenge is confirmed. The sentence is reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and a fine of Rs.20,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the revision petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Out of the fine amount, if collected, Rs.17,000/- shall be paid to the 1st respondent as compensation. The revision petitioner is granted three months time to remit the fine. Till then, the bail bond executed by the revision petitioner shall remain in force. (P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE) ps/11/7