IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 6TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 15TH KARTHIKA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3408 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.239/2008 of SESSIONS COURT, KASARAGOD CC.224/2008 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS -II ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF, KASARAGOD. .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- PREMA.C, AGED 31 YEARS, W/O.ASHOKAN, R/AT AVIKKAL HOUSE, AJANUR KADAPURAM, HOSDURG TALUK, KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.HARISH RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE ---------------------------------------------- 1. K.C.PETER, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.LATE CHAKKO, KOSSAPPALLIL HOUSE, KRISHNA QUARTERS, NEAR KOVVAL STORES, KANHANGAD SOUTH.P.O, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. STATE - REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.3408 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of November, 2009 ORDER The revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.224 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II (Additional Munsiff), Kasargod. The first respondent herein prosecuted the revision petitioner alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The revision petitioner pleaded not guilty. Hence, he was sent for trial. On the side of the first respondent, he was examined as PW.1 and Exts.P1 to P5 were marked. The revision petitioner took a defence that there was no transaction between himself and the respondent. Whereas he had given a blank cheque to one M.R.Nakulan, a social worker. However, no defence evidence was let in. The learned Magistrate on appraisal of evidence arrived a finding that the first respondent succeeded to establish the offence alleged. Consequently, the revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months. He was further directed to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation to the first respondent under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a default sentence of simple Crl.R.P.No.3408 of 2009 2 imprisonment for one month. In Criminal Appeal No.239 of 2008, the learned Sessions Judge, Kasargod, confirmed the conviction. But the substantive sentence was reduced to imprisonment till rising of the court. The direction to pay compensation with default clause was sustained. 2. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence as modified in appeal, this revision petition was filed. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and perusing the judgments of the courts below, 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 borrowed a sum of Rs.30,000/- from the first respondent and that in discharge of the said liability, Ext.P1 cheque dated 25/1/2007 drawn on Canara Bank, Kanjagad Branch 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 memos. Though a lawyer notice, demanding discharge of the liability was caused and it was acknowledged as evidenced by Ext.P3 acknowledgment card dated 24/1/2008, the Crl.R.P.No.3408 of 2009 3 liability was not discharged. Neither there is any reply. The revision petitioner did not care to adduce any evidence to establish the defence advanced when questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The result is that the evidence of PW.1 which is corroborated by the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act remains uncontroverted. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner had taken me through the evidence of PW.1. Though PW.1 was subjected to an extensive and searching cross- examination, no material was disclosed to disbelieve him. The defence suggestion that Ext.P1 was issued to one Nakulan remains to be a suggestion. In the above circumstance, I find that the courts below had correctly appreciated the evidence and concurrently found against the revision petitioner. I find that the conviction is based upon cogent evidence. There is no reason to interfere with the finding of guilty. 4. The sentence awarded by the trial court was reduced to one of imprisonment till rising of the court. The appellate court was very lenient in awarding the sentence. If at all erred, it is only towards leniency. The direction to pay compensation is Crl.R.P.No.3408 of 2009 4 quite appropriate. I find no reason to interfere with the sentence also. In the result the revision petition is devoid of merit. Accordingly it is dismissed. The revision petitioner is granted six months time to pay the compensation. Till then the bond executed by the revision petitioner will remain in force. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE Skj.