IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST MARCH 2007 / 30TH PHALGUNA 1928 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 66 of 1998() ---------------------------- CRA.29/1995 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, PARAVUR CC.528/1993 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PERUMBAVOOR .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------------- N.V.NARAYANAN NANGELI VEEDU PERUMBAVOOR BY ADV. SRI. T. RAVIKUMAR SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. SANTHI SLAVOS S/O.XAVIER KALAMBADAN VEEDU NEDUNGAPARA KARA VENGOOR WEST VILLAGE. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.KAMMAPPU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/03/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.R.P.No.66/1998 ORDER ON CRL.M.P.NO.401/1998 IN CRL.R.P.NO.66/1998 DISMISSED 21.3.2007 Sd/- K.R.UDAYABHANU, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE K.R.UDAYABHANU, J --------------------------------------------- CRL.R.P.No.66 of 1998 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2007 ORDER Revision petitioner stands convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. 2. The contention of counsel for the revision petitioner is that the revision petitioner ought to have been given an opportunity to adduce evidence in support of his version that the signed blank cheque was stolen by the complainant. The evidence adduced in the matter consisted the testimony of PW1 and Exts. P1 to P7. The revision petitioner has relied on the decision in Bindu vs. Sreekandan Nair (2007(1) KLT 525) in support of his contention that when he denied the writings in the cheque except the signature, the same is not sufficient to establish the execution. 3. In the circumstances of the case, I find that PW1 has testified with respect to the execution of the cheque. In the cross examination he has stated he is not aware of the person CRRP66/98 Page numbers who wrote down the details in the cheque that the accused has brought a cheque pre-written into his office and signed in his presence. He has not been cross examined with respect to the version of the accused that the signed blank cheque was stolen. I find that the facts of the case has no similarity with the facts situation in the cited decision. On a perusal of the evidence of PW1, I find that nothing has been brought out in the cross examination to suspect his version. No contradiction or inconsistency has been brought out. The revision petitioner has not adduced any evidence or brought out any circumstances in the cross examination of PW1 to rebut the statutory presumptions. In the circumstances, I find no reasons to interfere in the findings of the court below in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this court. The criminal revision petition is dismissed. K.R.UDAYABHANU, JUDGE csl