IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2011 / 17TH ASHADHA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 477 of 2003() ----------------------------- CRA.43/1994 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), PATHANAMTHITTA ST.2/1992 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, RANNI .................... REVN. PETITIONER/ APPELLANT/ACCUSED ---------------------------------------- THOMAS VARGHESE (K.T.VARGHESE), KOTTACKATTU HOUSE, NARANAMOOZHI P.O., ATHIKAYAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.K.GEORGE VARGHESE KANNANTHANAM SRI.TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------------- 1. M.C.ABRAHAM, MALACKAL HOUSE, MUKKOOTTUTHARA P.O., MUKKOOTTUTHARA. PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI. PUZHAKKARA MOHAMMED THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. ---------------------- Crl.R.P.No. 477 OF 2003 --------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of July, 2011 O R D E R ~~~~~~~ Revision petitioner is the accused in S.T No.2/92 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Ranny. The 1st respondent herein prosecuted the revision petitioner for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'NI Act'). The trial court, after trial, found the revision petitioner guilty. Consequently, the revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.5,000/-. In Crl.A.No.43/1994 the Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc)-I while confirming the conviction reduced the sentence to simple imprisonment for three months. The order to pay fine was sustained. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence, this Revision Petition was preferred. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and perused the records. Going by the judgments impugned, I Crl.R.P.No.477/2003 2 find that the 1st respondent, who was examined as PW1, had succeeded to establish that a sum of Rs.19788/- was due to him from the revision petitioner out of business transaction. In discharge of the said liability, Ext.P1 cheque dated 2.11.1991 for the said amount was issued. When presented for collection, it was returned dishonoured for insufficient funds. A lawyer notice, copy of which was marked as Ext.P3, demanding discharge of the liability was caused. Despite the acknowledgment of the lawyer notice demanding discharge of the liability as evidenced by Ext.P5, the liability was not discharged. Consequently, the 1st respondent prosecuted the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner has no good defence at all. He remained silent after acknowledging the notice indicating that he had no good defence. I find that the courts below had correctly appreciated the evidence and arrived at a conclusion of guilt. The conviction under challenge is based upon cogent evidence and requires no interference. 3. Having taken notice that the revision petitioner was an agriculturalist and then aged 70 years, he is entitled to a little Crl.R.P.No.477/2003 3 leniency in sentence and that a fine of Rs.25,000/- would meet the ends of justice. 4. In the result, the Revision Petition is disposed of as follows: The conviction under challenge is confirmed. The sentence is reduced to a fine of Rs.25,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the revision petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Out of the fine amount, if collected, Rs.20,000/- shall be paid to the 1st respondent as compensation. The revision petitioner is granted two months time to remit the compensation. Till then the bail bond executed by the revision petitioner shall remain in force. (P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE) ps/11/7