IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2009 / 1ST ASWINA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2968 of 2009() ------------------------------------------- CRA.281/2007 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-2), THRISSUR CC.736/2004 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, CHAVAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------------------------------- BALAKRISHNAN, S/O. APPUKUTTAN, KANDARASSERY HOUSE, MANATHALA AMSOM DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COM PLAINANT& STATE: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SADANANDAN, S/O. PARANGU, KANDARASSERY HOUSE, MANATHALA VILLAGE DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. ADV. SRI. JAYAKRISHNAN, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2968 of 2009 ORDER ON CRL. M.A. NO.9158/2009 IN Crl.R.P NO.2968/2009 DISMISSED SD/- 23/9/2009 P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE skj P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2968 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2009 ORDER The revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.736/2004 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Chavakkad. The second respondent herein prosecuted the revision petitioner alleging offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial court after due trial arrived a conclusion of guilt. Consequently the revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months and directed to pay Rs.2,25,000/-, the cheque amount as compensation to the second respondent with default sentence for three months. In appeal the Additional Sessions Judge, Thrissur confirmed the conviction. The substantive sentence of simple imprisonment was reduced to till rising of court. The direction to pay compensation was sustained. 2. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence as was reduced in appeal, this revision petition was filed. Having heard the learned counsel for Crl.R.P.No.2968 of 2009 2 the revision petitioner and pursuing the judgment impugned, I find that the second respondent had succeeded to establish that the revision petitioner owed Rs.2,25,000/- to the second respondent and in discharge of the said liability Ext.P1 cheque dated 19/5/04 was issued and that when Ext.P1 was sent for collection it was returned bounced for insufficiency of funds as evidenced by Exts.P2 and P3. Though the revision petitioner acknowledged the lawyer notice, copy of which was marked as Ext.P4, the liability was not discharged. Hence the second respondent was justified in launching the prosecution. The conviction is substantiated by cogent evidence. The revision petitioner has no good defence at all other than the total denial. The evidence of PW.1 regarding the liability, issuance of cheque, dishonouring of the same, issuance of notice demanding discharge of liability was corroborated by Exts.P1 to P5. Courts below had correctly appreciated the evidence and rightly arrived a conclusion of guilt. The conviction under challenge is unassailable. The lower appellate court is very lenient in reducing the substantive sentence. 3. In the result, I find no merit in the revision petition. Crl.R.P.No.2968 of 2009 3 Accordingly it is dismissed. However, the revision petitioner is granted six months time for payment of compensation on execution of a bail bond for Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with 2 solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial court within 15 days. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE skj.