IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2011 / 12TH SRAVANA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3796 of 2009() ---------------------------- CRA.24/2008 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-III), PALAKKAD ST.501/2006 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, PALAKKAD ................ REVISION PETITIONER / APPELLANT / ACCUSED : ------------------------------------------------------------------------- SAHADEVAN, S/O.KANDAN, VILLAGE MAN, PUDUSSERY CENTRAL VILLAGE OFFICE, KANJIKKODE, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS / RESPONDENTS / COMPLAINANT : ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. N.M.RASHEED, S/O.NOORMUHAMMED, GARDEN STREET, KOPPAM, PALAKKAD. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY SRI.P.K.MOHANAN (PALAKKAD) R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. REKHA C. NAIR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P No.3796 OF 2009 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of August 2011 ORDER Revision is by the accused convicted of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, NI Act), concurrently by the two inferior courts. The trial Magistrate, on his conviction, has sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay compensation of `75,000/- with default term of imprisonment for one month more. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, affirming the conviction, vacated the substantive term of imprisonment and modified the compensation awarded as fine, enhancing the sum to `80,000/-, with default term of two months. Feeling aggrieved, the accused has preferred this revision. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused. The entries in the cheque involved in the case were all type written and the case of the complainant regarding the date of handing over of the cheque to him by the accused is belied by the defence evidence tendered in the case, but, that has not been properly appreciated by both the courts below, is the submission of the counsel. The execution of the cheque, and also passing of consideration thereunder, has not been established by cogent and convincing legal evidence despite the challenge raised thereof by the accused contending that a blank signed Crl.R.P No.3796/2009 - 2 - cheque alone was given as security in respect of a previous transaction with the complainant, is the further submission of the counsel. 3. Going through the judgments rendered by the two courts below, I find that on dishonour of the cheque, a statutory notice was issued by the complainant to the accused intimating such dishonour and demanding the sum covered by the instrument, but, that was not responded to. The learned Magistrate has taken note that with respect to the transaction relating to the cheque, which was stated as handed over in blank form with signature alone as security, the accused had presented conflicting versions. Whereas in cross examination of the complainant, examined as PW1, he had a case that a sum of `5,000/- was borrowed, when he was questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, his case covered by the transaction was only `4,500/-. When that be the merit of the defence set up by the accused, it is seen, the case of the complainant, examined as PW1, with the materials tendered, was found credible, trustworthy and convincing to the learned Magistrate and also the learned Sessions Judge, who affirmed the view so taken by the Magistrate after reappraisal of the evidence. The accused who had set up a defence that a blank signed cheque was given as security did not mount the box to swear in support of his case. He examined his superior, a Village Officer, as DW1 to advance a case that on the date the cheque was alleged to have been Crl.R.P No.3796/2009 - 3 - issued by him as claimed by the complainant, he had attended the duty. The evidence of DW1 indicated that even if he were on duty on that day he could have gone out for various purposes. It was also noticed by the learned Magistrate to conclude that the defence set up by the accused that a blank signed cheque alone was given as security in respect of a previous transaction with the complainant was unworthy of any merit. Even if there is dispute over the execution of the cheque, the law does not insist that corroboration must be required for accepting the version of the complainant. When the evidence of the complainant, examined as PW1, was found trustworthy, nothing more was required to prove the execution of the cheque by the accused. The cheque was type written would not in any way assist the accused to contend that the instrument had been issued in blank form with signature alone. Conviction of the accused in such circumstance, concurrently, by the two courts, for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act, is found unassailable. 4. So far as the sentence imposed, I find, much leniency has been extended by the learned Sessions Judge in vacating the substantive term of imprisonment imposed by the learned Magistrate. No further interference in the sentence is called for. Revision lacks merit, and it is dismissed. vdv S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE