IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 3RD ASWINA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3003 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.321/2008 of SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM ST.134/2007 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS-IV,KOLLAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- K.N.MURALEEDHARAN ASSARY, THIKKMATHY, MEENATH CHERRY, KAVANADU, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.SARIN PANICKER RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. G.GOPINATHAN PILLAI, LEKSHMI NIVAS MANAKKADU, VADAKKEVILA KOLLAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RITHWIK THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.3003 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of September, 2009 ORDER The revision petitioner is the accused in S.T.No.134 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-IV, Kollam. The first respondent herein, the complainant before the lower court prosecuted the revision petitioner alleging offence Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned Magistrate on conclusion of the trial, arrived a finding that the first respondent succeeded to establish the guilt alleged against the revision petitioner. Consequently, he was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment till rising of the court and a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, the cheque amount. Though Criminal Appeal No.321 of 2008 was filed before the Sessions Judge, Kollam, the revision petitioner was unsuccessful. 2. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence confirmed in appeal, this revision petition was filed. Crl.R.P.No.3003 of 2009 2 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and perusing the judgment impugned, I find that the first respondent who was examined as PW.1 supported by Exts.P1 to P5 had succeeded to establish that the revision petitioner owed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the 1st respondent and in discharge of the said liability Ext.P1 cheque for the said amount drawn on District Co-operative Bank, Anandavalleeswaram 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 15/5/03. Though a lawyer notice, copy of which was marked as Ext.P3 was acknowledged by the revision petitioner as evidenced by Ext.P5, the liability was not discharged. Hence the conclusion of the trial court regarding the guilt is based upon cogent evidence adduced. The sentence awarded is very lenient and requires no interference. 4. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed. Taking into account that the revision petitioner is a pensioner and is in his sixties, six months time is granted for payment Crl.R.P.No.3003 of 2009 3 provided he executes a bond for Rs.25,000/- with 2 solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE skj.