IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2011 / 31ST ASHADHA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2920 of 2004(D) ------------------------------- CRA.100/1998 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), PATHANAMTHITTA CC.574/1994 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, THIRUVALLA .................... REVN. PETITIONER/ APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- T.BALAKRISHNAN, PEON (H.G.) P.H.E.D., PHED QUARTERS NO.III, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, THIRUVALLA. BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP M.VARGHESE SRI.SHABU VARGHESE RESPONDENTS/ COMPLAINANT & STATE ---------------------------------- 1. P.E.JAGADESHWARA PANICKER, UTHRAMPALLIL HOUSE, MUTHOOR P.O., THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, PUZHAKKARA MUHAMMED THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. ---------------------- Crl.R.P.No. 2920 OF 2004 --------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2011 O R D E R ~~~~~~~ Revision petitioner was found guilty for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'NI Act') by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Thiruvalla in C.C.No.574/94. Consequently, the revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs.40,000/- with usual default clause. In Crl.A.No.100/1998 the Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc), Pathanamthitta, by judgment dated 21.7.2004 while confirming the conviction reduced the sentence to imprisonment till the raising of the court with direction to pay Rs.40,000/- as compensation to the 2nd respondent who is the defacto complainant. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence as modified in appeal, this Revision Petition was preferred. 2. On 19.7.2011, when the Revision Petition came up for hearing, no one turned up. Consequently, it was posted to Crl.R.P.No.2920/2004 2 this date for disposal. Today also, there is no representation. I have gone through the judgments of the appellate court as well as the trial court. Having gone through the judgments, I find that the 1st respondent through the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 supported by Exts.P1 to P7 had succeeded to establish that the revision petitioner owed a sum of Rs.20,000/- to the 1st respondent and in discharge of that liability Ext.P1 cheque dated 20.6.1994 drawn on Catholic Syrian Bank, Thiruvalla Branch was issued and when presented for collection, it was returned dishonoured for insufficient funds. A lawyer notice, copy of which was marked as Ext.P3, demanding discharge of the liability was caused. Despite the acknowledgment of the lawyer notice demanding discharge of the liability as evidenced by Ext.P5, the liability was not discharged. The plea of the revision petitioner is that Ext.P1 was issued as a security for some money owed by one K.T.Mathai. In support of that plea DW1 was examined. But DW1 had gone further and given evidence that the cheque issued was a blank one. Even the revision petitioner has no such case. Going by the judgments, I find that the trial court was justified in disbelieving the evidence of DW1 and Crl.R.P.No.2920/2004 3 giving reliance to the testimony of PWs 1 to 3 supported by Exts.P1 to P7. I find that the conviction under challenge is based upon cogent evidence. The appellate court was very lenient in reducing the substantive sentence to imprisonment till the rising of the court. The sentence also requires no interference. In the result, the Revision Petition is dismissed. Trial court shall see the execution of the sentence and report compliance. (P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE) ps