IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2009 / 24TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3537 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.379/2007 of VI ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM CC.346/2004 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, KOCHI .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT ---------------------------------------- P.JOSE UKKURU, PROPRIETOR, P.V.UKKURU INTERNATIONAL TRADE, XV/6049,BOX NO.3255,T.D. WEST ROAD, KOCHI - 682035. BY ADV. SRI.P.KESAVAN NAIR SRI.K.G.CLEETUS RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------- 1. RISHI PALPU, PROPRIETOR, P.P.R.COMPANY, P.B.6119, MYTHRI PARK, AYYANTHOL, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. MUHAMMED PUZHAKKARA FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------------- CRL.R.P.NO.3537 OF 2008 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of January, 2009 O R D E R Revision petitioner is the complainant and first respondent the accused in C.C.346 of 2004 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kochi. First respondent was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for two weeks and compensation of Rs.27,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for two weeks for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. First respondent challenged the conviction and sentence before Sessions Court, Ernakulam in Crl. Appeal 379 of 2007. Learned Additional Sessions Judge on reappreciation of evidence confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of Court and a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for two months setting aside the direction to pay compensation. Revision is filed by the complainant challenging the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge contending that the learned Additional Sessions Judge should not have accepted Ext.D1 as a receipt for payment of the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque, which was allegedly made subsequent to the filing of the complaint and case was pending CRRP 3537/2008 2 before the Magistrate, when on the evidence learned Magistrate rejected Ext.D1. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner vehemently argued that in the light of the evidence of DW1, which was rightly appreciated by the learned Magistrate, learned Sessions Judge should not have accepted Ext.D1 when revision petitioner denied the receipt of the amount as stated in Ext.D1 and the evidence of DW1 is insufficient to prove that the amount was received. 2. On hearing the learned counsel, I find no reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Learned Additional Sessions Judge appreciated the evidence in the proper perspective and found that Ext.P1 cheque for Rs.26,745/- was issued by first respondent in favour of the revision petitioner towards discharge ofthe existing liability and the cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds and in spite of notice served on the first respondent within the statutory period, first respondent failed to pay the amount. Therefore learned Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction of the revision petitioner for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act finding that payment of the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque subsequent to the completion of the commission of the offence will not obliterate the offence. Learned Sessions Judge set aside the direction to pay compensation on the ground that Ext.D1 receipt shows that revision petitioner received the CRRP 3537/2008 3 amount from the first respondent. The argument of the learned counsel is that Ext.D1 was not proved and when revision petitioner denied the receipt, on the evidence it should not have been accepted. 3. Learned counsel made available a copy of deposition of PW1 and Ext.D1. When PW1 was cross-examined, Ext.D1 receipt was shown to the revision petitioner, he had admitted his signature in Ext.D1though he denied that he had received Rs.85,243/- as stated therein. But PW1 has no case at that time that it was his signature in a blank paper which was subsequently converted to a receipt which was argued by the counsel. On the other hand his explanation was that it does not relate to the transaction involved in this case which was disproved by its recitals. Though learned counsel argued that evidence of DW1 is insufficient to prove Ext.D1 and the receipt of the amount, in the light of evidence of DW1, I find no reason to interfere with the findings of the Additional Sessions Judge that revision petitioner is not entitled to compensation as sought for. In such circumstances revision is dismissed. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE okb