IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2009 / 1ST ASWINA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2971 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.601/2007 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT FAST TRACK COURT II(ADHOC), THRISSUR ST.1665/2005 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, WADAKKANCHERY .................... REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------- PRADEEP, S/O.KUTTAPPAN, ACHATH PARAMBIL HOUSE, DESAMANGALAM VILLAGE AND DESOM, TALAPPILLY TALUK BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MOHANAN (PALAKKAD) RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE ---------------------------------------------- 1. RAVI, S/O.KAPLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KONDAYUR DESOM, PALLUR VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RITHWIK THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2971 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2009 ORDER The revision petitioner is the accused in S.T.No.1665/2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Wadakkanchery. The first respondent herein prosecuted the revision petitioner alleging offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial court after due trial arrived a conclusion of guilt. Consequently the revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months. He was further directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the first respondent. In appeal the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Thrissur reduced the substantive sentence to imprisonment till rising of the court. Direction to pay compensation was sustained. The legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence as modified in appeal is assailed in this revision petition. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and perusing the impugned judgment, I find that the Crl.R.P.No.2971 of 2009 2 first respondent who was examined as PW.1 supported by Exts.P1 to P5 had succeeded to establish that the revision petitioner owed a sum of Rs.50,000/- and in discharge of the said liability Ext.P1 cheque dated 17/5/04 drawn on Punjab National Bank was issued and that when Ext.P1 was sent for collection it was returned for insufficiency of funds as evidenced by Ext.P2. Though the first respondent issued a notice demanding discharge of the liability it was returned refused. The liability was not discharged. Hence the first respondent was justified in launching the prosecution. The revision petitioner has got no good defence. The courts below had correctly appreciated the evidence and arrived a finding of guilt. Conviction is based on cogent evidence. I find no error, illegality or impropriety in arriving a conclusion of guilt by the courts below. The lower appellate court was very lenient in reducing the substantive sentence. There is no good reason to interfere with the conviction and sentence. 3. In the result, this revision petition is dismissed. The revision petitioner is granted six months time for payment of compensation amount on executing bond for Rs.10,000/- with 2 Crl.R.P.No.2971 of 2009 3 solvent sureties each for like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE skj.