IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER THURSDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2011 / 19TH PHALGUNA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2578 of 2004(B) ----------------------------------------- CRA.258/2002 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (FAST TRACK)-II, PALAKKAD ST.619/1998 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, PALAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: MANIKANDAN, S/O. SOMASUNDARAM, VISHWANATHA BHAVANAM, CHITTUR ROAD, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.PRASUN.S RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE: 1. NOOR MOHAMMED, S/O. RAHIM MUTHU RAWTHER, AMBALATHIL HOUSE, KADAMKODE, KARINGARAPPULLY, PALAKKAD. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.R.RAGHUNATH FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAIBY PAUL FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. Basheer, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P. No. 2578 of 2004 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 10th day of March, 2011 Order Petitioner was tried for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act at the instance of respondent No.1/complainant. The case of the complainant was that the petitioner/accused had issued Ext.P1 cheque for a sum of `.1,50,000/- in discharge of a debt. But when the cheque was presented for encashment, it was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds. The statutory demand notice was returned with the endorsement “unclaimed”. Hence the complaint. 2. The complainant got himself examined before the trial court as Pw.1 and Exts.P1 to P5 were marked on his side. There was no oral or documentary evidence on the side of the defence. 3. The specific case of the complainant was that the accused had borrowed a sum of `.1,50,000 from him and in discharge of the said debt he had issued Ext.P1 cheque. The said assertion made by the complainant stood uncontroverted and unchallenged in the sense that no satisfactory evidence was adduced by the petitioner to show that there was no legally Crl.RP.2578/2004. : : dischargeable debt or liability or that he had not issued such a cheque. The only defence was that he happened to issue the cheque as security for someone else's debt or liability. The said contention was not substantiated at all. 4. The trial court therefore rightly found the petitioner guilty and convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a sum of `.10,000/- as fine and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of two months. The said order of conviction and sentence was challenged by the petitioner before the Sessions Court. Though the order of conviction was affirmed by the appellate court the sentence was modified and the petitioner was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months and to pay a sum of `.1,50,000/- by way of compensation under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of two months. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record. Having done so, I do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner. 6. In this context, it may be noticed that in October 2004, this Court, while suspending the sentence, had directed the petitioner to deposit `.40,000/- as a condition precedent. But the report dated July 26, 2010, filed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palakkad, shows that the petitioner has not executed Crl.RP.2578/2004. : : the bond as directed by this Court nor has he deposited the amount of `.40,000/-. A non-bailable warrant is reportedly pending against him. In that view of the matter, the prayer made by the learned counsel to delete the substantive sentence of imprisonment cannot be countenanced or sustained at all. 7. As has been noticed already, petitioner did not deny execution of the cheque. His only defence before the court below was that he had issued the cheque in discharge of a debt incurred by someone else. He did not even bother to adduce any evidence in support of his case. I do not find absolutely no merit in this revision petition. Therefore the revision petition is dismissed. A.K. Basheer Judge. an.