IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH DECEMBER 2008 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2909 of 2005(C) --------------------------------------- CRA.47/2001 of I ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM CC.28/1997 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PARAVOOR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED. -------------------------------------------------------- JANARDHANAN.K. KONNJICHIVILA VEEDU, KURUMANDAL.A, PARAVOOR P.O. KOLLAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT AND STATE. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. G.S. GIRIJA, THEKKEKUNNUVILA, NEDUNGOLAM P.O. KOLLAM DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THOMAS JOHN AMBOOKEN. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRIMINAL.R.P. NO. 2909 OF 2005 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 4th day of December, 2008. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kollam in Crl.A.47/01. That appeal was preferred against the conviction and sentence passed in by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Paravur in C.C.28/97. The trial court found the accused guilty u/s 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- u/s 357(3) Cr.P.C. The appeal was dismissed by the appellate court. It is against that decision the present revision is preferred. 2. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner strongly contends before me that the transaction is not proved and there is no proper notice. It is the case of the complainant that the accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.10,000/- and towards the discharge of the liability had issued a cheque which when presented for encashment returned with endorsement insufficiency of funds. As there Cr.R.P. 2909 OF 2005 -:2:- was postal strike notice was directly handed over to the accused and since he did not pay the amount prosecution has been launched. The admitted defence appears to be that the accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.8,500/- from the father and uncle of the complainant and had paid a sum of Rs.3,500/- and for the balance amount he had issued a signed blank cheque which has been used for filing the complaint. 3. In the trial court PW1 and DW1 were examined and Exts.P1 to P5 were marked. PW1 spoke in line with the complaint and the trial court as well as appellate court found nothing wrong in accepting the evidence of the said witnesses. The defence evidence was not found trustworthy and it was found that one of the witnesses was the step father of the accused in the case. The accused is an employee in a Bank and the notice was directly served on him for which there had been an endorsement and the Courts below were satisfied that a proper notice had been tendered. Both the Courts below had evaluated the evidence only in the correct perspective which does not call for any interference. Cr.R.P. 2909 OF 2005 -:3:- 4. Now, regarding the question of sentence. It has to be held that some leniency can be shown and I am told that he is an employee in a Bank. I feel interest of justice can be met by imposing a fine on the revision petitioner. Therefore the Criminal Revision is disposed of as follows: (1) The conviction u/s 138 of the N.I. Act is sustained. (2) The sentence is modified and the revision petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- which on realisation be paid to the complainant in the case. (3) In case of default of payment of fine the revision petitioner has to undergo imprisonment for a period of one month. (4) The revision petitioner shall pay the amount of Rs.10,000/- on or before 5.1.2009 and in case of default the trial court is directed to execute the sentence. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-