IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2009 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 294 of 2001() ----------------------------- CC.201/1997 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KASARAGOD CRA.155/1999 of SESSIONS COURT, KASARAGOD .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED --------------------- DAMODHARAN NAIR. B., AGED 41 YEARS, S/O LATE KUNHIKANNAN NAIR, BALIGADAM HOUSE, PERUMBLA, KALNAD, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SMT.R.PADMAKUMARI RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT --------------- 1. BHASKARA K., AGE 32 YEARS, S/O LATE RAMA CHETTIYAR, NEAR GANESH MANDIR, BADIADKA, PERDALA, KASARAGOD 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, EKM PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- Crl.R.P.294/2001 -------------------- Dated this the 17th day of March, 2009 ORDER Accused in C.C.No.201/97 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kasargod, is the petitioner herein. He was prosecuted, convicted and sentenced for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act [for short ‘the Act’]. Appeal filed against the conviction and sentence was dismissed and hence the revision. 2. The case of the complainant is that Ext.P1 cheque was issued by the accused for re-payment of an amount of Rs.50,000/- which he had borrowed in January, 1997. Cheque on presentation was dishonoured, as evidenced by Ext.P2 memo. Though Ext.P3 notice was issued, there was no reply nor was there any payment. Thereafter, the complaint was lodged. 3. It is seen from a reading of the trial Court judgment that the accused did not even care to cross- Crl.R.P.294/2001 2 examine the complainant. No other evidence was let in. He was questioned under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. Taking note of the unchallenged testimony of PW1 and also Exts.P1 to P4, trial Court found the accused guilty under Section 138 of the Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five months and to pay a fine of Rs.55,000/-. An appeal was preferred by the accused. A reading of the appellate Court judgment would show that the appellant was absent nor was he represented in the appellate Court. Appellate Court proceeded to dismiss the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence. Hence the Revision. 4. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Though served from this Court, there is no appearance on behalf of the complainant. 5. At the time of admitting this revision, this Court had directed the sentence to be suspended on condition that an amount of Rs.25,000/- is deposited. Crl.R.P.294/2001 3 It is not clear whether the said amount has been deposited. 6. I have gone through the evidence as well. In the light of the fact that the testimony of the complainant remains unchallenged and taking note of the fact that there was not even a reply sent to the demand notice sent on behalf of the complainant, it is clear that the complainant has been able to prove that the accused has committed an offence under Section 138 of the Act. I do not find any grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs