IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 25TH BHADRA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2852 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.156/2008 of ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE, FAST TRACK (ADHOKC-II),KOZHIKODE ST.1982/2006 of SPECIAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT- (MARAD CASES), KOZHIKODE ..................................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSD ------------------------------------- P.MOHANAN, S/OP. PADMANABHAN "ARYALAYAM" MANNUMMOOLA, PEROORKADA.P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) SRI.R.JAYAKRISHNAN SRI.PRASANTH M.P RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE ---------------------------------- 1. ABDUL RAHMAN, S/O. S.P.BAVA, POONTHATTUTHAZHAM HOUSE, P.O.POKKUNNU,KOZHIKODE. 2. 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 16/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN, J ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2852 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of September, 2009 ORDER The revision petitioner is the accused in ST No.1982/2006 on the file of Special Judicial Magistrate of the First Class (Marad Cases), Kozhikode. The First respondent herein prosecuted the revision petitioner alleging offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The learned magistrate after due trial found the revision petitioner guilty. Consequently he was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for one month and directed the revision petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.80,000/- (Rupees Eighty Thousand only) as compensation under section 357(3) of Cr.PC. Aggrieved by the above conviction and sentence Criminal Appeal No.156/2008 was preferred before the Sessions Judge, Kozhikode. The learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-II), to whom the appeal was made over,by judgment dated 7/5/2009 confirmed the conviction and sentence and the appeal was Crl.R.P.No.2852 of 2009 2 dismissed. Assailing the legality,correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence which was confirmed in appeal this revision petition was filed. 2. I heard the learned counsel and had gone through the judgment impugned.By the evidence of the first respon- dent as PW1 coupled with Exts.P1 to P6 it was established that in discharge of a liability amounting to Rs.80,000/- (Rupees Eighty Thousand only) the revision petitioner issued Ext.P1 cheque dated 30/6/2006 and when it was sent for collection it was bounced 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 dated 4/8/2006 was issued. Though the lawyer notice was acknowledged on 10/8/2006 the liability was not discharged.But a reply was sent. Neither the revision petitioner nor the first respondent had produced the reply notice. However, there is no discharge. The plea of the Crl.R.P.No.2852 of 2009 3 revision petitioner is that Ext.P1 cheque was issued as security. Though he entered the witness box and adduced evidence as Dw1, the courts below disbelieved him. In the light of the evidence of Pw1 coupled with Exts.P1 to P6 I find no error, illegality or impropriety committed by the courts below in disbelieving Dw1. Hence I find that the conviction under challenge is unassailable. Having taken into account of the submission of the learned counsel that the revision petitioner is a practising lawyer and the financial difficulties led him to face the prosecution, I find that the sentence awarded by the courts below is excessive and requires modification and that an imprisonment till rising of the court would meet the ends of justice. 3. In the result,the revision petition is allowed in part. The conviction under challenge is confirmed. The sentence of imprisonment is reduced to till rising of the court. Direction to pay compensation is confirmed. The Crl.R.P.No.2852 of 2009 4 revision petitioner is granted six months time for payment of the compensation amount provided he executes a bond for Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court within a period of one month. In default to pay compensation the revision petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE ssn