IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD JANUARY 2008 / 13TH POUSHA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 718 of 2004() ----------------------------- CRA.546/2002 of SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM CC.443/1998 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, VAIKOM .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------------------------- T.G. MOHANAN, SON OF GOPALAN, THANDATHUPPARAMBIL, MANJOOR POST, KURUPPANTHARA KARA, MANJOOR VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ALEX M. ARAYATH SRI.DENIZEN KOMATH SMT.SHAIMA .U. RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. P.R. PRASAD @ SIVAPRASAD SON OF KURUMBAN, PUTHENPURAYIL, ARUNOOTTIMANGAMAL P.O., K.S. PURAM KARA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.PUZHAKARA MUHAMMED THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRRP718/2004 ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.2894/2004 IN CRL.R.P.NO.718/2004 DISMISSED 3.1.2008 SD/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.718 of 2004 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of January, 2008 O R D E R The revision petitioner stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Judicial Magistrate of the First Class sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. Confirming the conviction, the Court of Session modified the sentence of imprisonment to be for one month and to pay compensation of Rs.75,000/-, with default sentence. 2. In view of the fact that the signature in Ext.P1 cheque is not disputed, the courts below concurrently drew presumptions as available under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It was also noticed that the accused had not replied to the statutory notice issued before the filing of the complaint. The version of the complainant as PW1 was also corroborated by PW2 who is stated to have witnessed the delivery of the cheque to the complainant. CRRP 718/04 2 3. The accused had set up a defence of having borrowed only Rs.17,000/- of which he had repaid an amount of Rs.4,000/-. Except for his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., there was no shred of legal evidence in support of his defence version. The Court of Session also held against him by treating his silence to the statutory notice as supporting his culpability. 4. Having regard to the materials on record, the conviction entered by the courts below, the modified sentence imposed by the Court of Session and the order of compensation, do not call for any interference in this revision. In the result, this revision petition is dismissed. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge csl