IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2009 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3384 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.333/2008 of SESSIONS COURT, KASARAGOD CC.971/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, HOSDRUG .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): -------------------------------- K.T.GEETHA, W/O.A.BALAKRISHNAN, RESIDING AT CHAITHANYA, KIZHAKUMKARA, P.O.AJANUR, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SREEJITH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. A.T.AMBADI, S/O.CHANDAN VELICHAPPADAN, OPPOSITE DURGA HIGH SCHOOL, NITTADUKKAM, P.O.KANHANGAD, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.JAYAKRISHNAN. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. == = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.3384 of 2009. = = = == = = = = = = = Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2009. O R D E R The revision petitioner is the accused in CC.No.971/2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Hosdurg. The first respondent prosecuted the revision petitioner alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned Magistrate, after due trial, arrived a conclusion of guilt. Consequently, the revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for four months. She was further ordered to pay Rs.1,30,000/- as compensation, to the first respondent under Section 357(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. In appeal, the Sessions Judge, Kasaragod confirmed the conviction and the sentence was reduced to imprisonment till rising of the court. The order to pay compensation and default clause are confirmed. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and Crl.R.P.No.3384 of 2009. -: 2 :- sentence as modified in appeal, this revision petition was filed. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and perusing the judgment impugned, I find that the first respondent, who was examined as Pw1, supported by Exts.P1 to P4, had succeeded to establish that the revision petitioner owed a sum of Rs.1,90,000/- to the first respondent and in partial discharge of that liability Ext.P1 cheque for Rs.1,30,000/- dated 17.2.2007 drawn on Syndicate Bank, Kanhangad Branch was issued and that when Ext.P1 was sent for collection, it was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds, as evidenced by Ext.P2 memo dated 15.5.2007. Though a lawyer notice, copy of which was marked as Ext.P3 dated 23.5.2007 was caused demanding discharge of the liability and it was acknowledged by the revision petitioner as evidenced by Ext.P4, the liability was not discharged. There is no contra evidence. The revision petitioner has got no good defence. The evidence of Pw1 remains uncontroverted. I find that the courts below had Crl.R.P.No.3384 of 2009. -: 3 :- correctly appreciated the evidence and arrived a finding of guilty. The conviction under challenge is unassailable. 3. The appellate court was very lenient in reducing the sentence to one of imprisonment till rising of the Court. If at all erred, it is only towards leniency. The order to pay compensation is quite appropriate. 4. In the result, the revision petitioner is dismissed. The revision petitioner is granted six months' time for payment of compensation. Till then, the bond executed by the revision petitioner shall remain in force. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE. Kvs/-