IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 7TH ASWINA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2963 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.483/2008 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-I, KOTTAYAM ST.193/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, CHANGANACHERRY .................... REVN. PETITIONER: REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ---------------------------------------------------------- SAJI HASSAN, KOHINOOR HOUSE, NEAR ST.ANN'S GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL, CHANGANACHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------------------- 1. PAUL JOSEPH, EDASSERRIPPARAMBIL HOUSE, MARKET, CHANGANACHERRY. 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 29/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2963 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of September, 2009 ORDER The revision petitioner is the accused in S.T.No.193 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class II, Changanassery. The first respondent 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 three months and a fine of Rs.1,50,000/- with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for one month. 2. Being aggrieved, Criminal Appeal No.483 of 2008 was preferred. The Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc)-I, Kottayam to whom the appeal was made over concurred with the lower court in its finding regarding the guilt. Consequently the conviction was confirmed. The substantive Crl.R.P.No.2963 of 2009 2 sentence was reduced to imprisonment till rising of the court. The fine imposed was confirmed. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence, this revision petition filed. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and perusing the judgments of the courts below, I find that the first respondent who was examined as PW.1 supported by Exts.P1 to P6, had succeeded to establish that the revision petitioner owed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to the first respondent and in discharge of that liability Ext.P1 cheque was issued and that when Ext.P1 cheque was sent for collection it was returned bounced for insufficiency of funds as evidenced by Exts.P2 and P3 memos dated 21/12/05 and 22/12/2005 respectively. Demanding discharge of the liability, a lawyer notice dated 27/12/2005, copy of which was marked as Ext.P4 was issued. Despite the acknowledgment of the notice as evidenced by Exts.P5 and P6, the liability was not discharged. The courts below had correctly appreciated the evidence and conviction is Crl.R.P.No.2963 of 2009 3 based upon cogent evidence. I find no reason to interfere the conviction impugned. 4. The appellate court was very lenient in reducing the sentence. If at all erred, it is towards leniency only and requires no interference. 5. In the result, this revision petition is dismissed. The revision petitioner is granted six months time for payment of fine provided he executes a bail bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for like sum to the satisfaction of the trial court within 15 days. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE Skj.