IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 3RD ASWINA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3000 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.378/2007 of I ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR ST.2233/2005 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, THRISSUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- JEEJA.V.R, AGED 37, W/O.DAMODHARAN, CHULLIYIL HOUSE, MANALUR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT AND STATE OF KERALA ---------------------------------------------- 1. KRISHNA KRIPA CHITS (INDIA) PVT. LTD., UNITED SHOPPING COMPLEX, POOTHOLE, THRISSUR. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.3000 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of September, 2009 ORDER The revision petitioner is the accused in S.T.No.2233 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Thrissur. The first respondent represented by its power of attorney holder herein prosecuted the revision petitioner alleging offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned Magistrate after due trial arrived a conclusion of guilt. Consequently the revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for one month and directed to pay Rs.75,000/-, the cheque amount, as compensation to the 1st respondent. In appeal the conviction was confirmed. The sentence of simple imprisonment was reduced to imprisonment till rising of court. The direction to pay compensation was sustained. 2. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence as reduced in appeal, this Crl.R.P.No.3000 of 2009 2 revision petition was filed. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and perusing the judgment impugned, I find that the first respondent through the evidence of PW.1 supported by Exts.P1 to P7 had succeeded to establish that the revision petitioner owed a sum of Rs.75,000/- to the first respondent and Ext.P1 cheque dated 3/12/2004 was issued in discharge of the said liability. When Ext.P1 was sent for collection it was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds as evidenced by Exts.P2 and P3 memos. Demanding discharge of the liability, a lawyer notice, copy of which was marked as Ext.P4 was issued. Despite the acknowledgment of notice as evidenced by Ext.P6, the liability was not discharged. It is in the above circumstance, the prosecution was launched. The courts below had correctly appreciated the evidence. The appellate court was very lenient in reducing the sentence. The substantive sentence is very lenient. Direction to pay compensation is quite appropriate. I find no reason to Crl.R.P.No.3000 of 2009 3 interfere with the conviction and sentence imposed by the court below. 4. In the result this revision petition is dismissed. However the revision petitioner is granted six months time for payment of compensation amount on executing a bond for Rs.10,000/- with 2 solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE skj