IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2011 / 15TH ASHADHA 1933 CRL.REV.PET.NO. 1550 OF 2011() ------------------------------ {C.C.NO.257/2008 OF THE ADDL.SESSIONS COURT-III, KOZHIKODE CC.257/2008 OF THE JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PAYYOLI} .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------------------------- JANARDHANAN,S/O.THEYYON,AGED 45 YEARS, NARIKKUNITHAZHE HOUSE, IRINGATH, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHARAM.P SMT.REKHA ARAVIND RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. KUNHIKANNAN,AGE NOT KNOWN,S/O.NARAYANAN, THIYYARUKANDIYIL HOUSE,MEPPAYOOR POST, KOYILANDY TALUK,KOZHIKODE-673001. 2. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1550 of 2011 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of July, 2011 O R D E R Revision petitioner is the accused convicted of the offence under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short “the Act”). His conviction by the trial magistrate for the aforesaid offence, as confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge in appeal, is challenged in this revision. Sentence imposed by the trial magistrate directing him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months was modified by the Sessions Judge, reducing it to simple imprisonment for three months, but retaining the orders to pay compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- - the cheque amount - with the default sentence of simple imprisonment of three months. 2. The defence raised that the cheque involved was issued towards the liability of another viz., one Vinod and the revision petitioner had no liability, leave alone any Crl.R.P.No.1550 of 2011 :: 2 :: independent transaction with the complainant was not properly appreciated by both the courts below and that has resulted in miscarriage of justice, is the submission of the learned counsel in support of the revision to assail the concurrent finding of guilt entered and the sentence imposed. It is further submitted by the counsel that the discrepancy in the writings in the cheque, which were highlighted during the cross-examination of the complainant when he was examined as PW.1, was not also properly taken into account by the court below in appreciating the defence projected challenging the merit of the prosecution case advanced by the complainant. 3. Going through the judgments rendered by the learned magistrate and also that of the Sessions Judge, I find, the grounds now raised by the counsel in this revision to assail the conviction of the revision petitioner/accused hardly merit any consideration. Prosecution was launched against the accused on Crl.R.P.No.1550 of 2011 :: 3 :: dishonour of a cheque, after issuing him a statutory notice intimating its dishonour demanding the amount covered by the instrument within the time fixed by the statute. Admittedly, that notice was not responded to. Other than setting forth a case that the cheque was issued in relation to a transaction of another viz., one Vinod, the accused has not taken any defence or explained the circumstances under which the cheque signed by him came into the possession of the complainant. He has also no case that the cheque was issued in blank form with signature alone. 4. When such be the case, the defence put forward by suggestive questions, during cross- examination of the complainant, is not worthy of any value. Vague hunches and suggestions, without anything more, have no place in the criminal trial. A fact situation may give rise to innumerable hypothesis, but, where the materials tendered are sufficient to prove the indictment levelled against an accused, any defence taken can be Crl.R.P.No.1550 of 2011 :: 4 :: accepted only if it satisfy the test of probability. So much so, the accused has put forth some suggestive questions to impeach the credit-worthiness of the complainant when he was examined as PW.1 and even assuming that there is some discrepancy in the writings in the instrument, that alone will not destabilise the case of the complainant or its worthiness. Further more, in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction, this court cannot re-appreciate the evidence, unless it is shown that the finding entered is so perverse, and it could not have been formed on the materials available on record. No such case has been made out in the present case. 5. Concurrent finding of guilt entered against the petitioner by the courts below, it is seen, is fully supported by legal evidence, and as such, the conviction imposed is unassailable. Substantive term of imprisonment of three months imposed, as modified by the Sessions Judge, shall stand reduced to imprisonment Crl.R.P.No.1550 of 2011 :: 5 :: for a day till the rising of the court. Compensation fixed with the default term on non-payment shall remain as such. 6. Petitioner to pay the compensation fixed within six weeks, and to appear before the concerned magistrate court on 16.08.2011 to report payment and serve out the sentence of imprisonment for a day. In default of appearance, and non-payment of the compensation as directed, the learned magistrate to take appropriate steps to secure his presence and execute the sentence imposed. Revision is disposed of as indicated above. Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE sk/- //true copy// P.S. to Judge.