IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 5TH OCTOBER 2009 / 13TH ASWINA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2999 of 2009() ----------------------------------------- CRA.559/2008 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC II), ERNAKULAM CC.1029/2003 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KOLENCHERRY .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): REVN.PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ---------------------------------- T.A.ROY,S/O.ALIAS, THEKKEKARAYIL HOUSE,EZHAKKARANADU SOUTH P.O., PUTHENCRUZ,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.GEORGIE SIMON RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. 2. SABU P.VARGHESE, PADINJARACKARAYIL HOUSE,PANCODE KARA, AIKKARANADU NORTH VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.RITHWIK THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.2999 of 2009. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 5th day of October, 2009. O R D E R The revision petitioner is the accused in CC.No.1029/2003 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kolencherry. The second respondent herein 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 five months. He was further directed to pay a compensation of Rs.40,000/- to the second respondent under Section 357(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. In appeal, the Addl.Sessions Judge (Adhoc-II), Ernakulam confirmed the conviction and Crl.R.P.No.2999 of 2009. -: 2 :- sentence. Assailing the legality correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence as confirmed in appeal, this revision petition was filed. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and perusing the judgments impugned, I find that the second respondent, who was examined as Pw1, supported by the evidence of Pw1 and Exts.P1 to P6, had succeeded to establish that the revision petitioner owed a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the second respondent and in discharge of that liability Ext.P1 cheque was issued and that when Ext.P1 was sent for collection, it was dishonoured for the reason ‘account closed’, as evidenced by Ext.P2 memo. Though a lawyer notice, copy of which was marked as Ext.P3 was caused demanding discharge of the liability and it was returned by the revision petitioner as evidenced by Exts.P4 and P5. Neither, the liability was discharged. There is no contra evidence. The revision Crl.R.P.No.2999 of 2009. -: 3 :- petitioner has taken a defence that Ext.P1 was delivered as a security when he availed a loan from the Consumer Credit and Higher Purchases Ltd., Kolencherry and there was no transaction with the 2nd respondent. But no supporting evidence was let in. The result is that the prosecution evidence remains uncontrovorted. I find that the courts below had correctly appreciated the evidence and arrived a finding of guilty. The conviction under challenge is unassailable. 3. Taking note that a simple money transaction led the revision petitioner to face prosecution, I find that he is entitled to leniency in sentence and a sentence of imprisonment till rising of the court and a fine of Rs.45,000/- (Rupees forty-five thousand only) with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for four months would meet the ends of justice. The revision petitioner is granted six months’ time for payment of compensation, provided he Crl.R.P.No.2999 of 2009. -: 4 :- executes a bond for Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for like sum to the satisfaction of the trial court. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE. Kvs/-