IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 8TH AUGUST 2011 / 17TH SRAVANA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2048 of 2003() ------------------------------ CRA.145/2001 of SESSIONS COURT, MANJERI ST.2817/1998 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, TIRUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): --------------------- K. ABBAS, S/O. ALIKUTTY, KUNHALI HOUSE, RAYIRIMANGALAM ASSOM, TANUR. BY ADV. SRI.A.KRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. C.P. VENUGOPAL S/O. KESAVAN NAIR ELAMBILAKALATHIL HOUSE, IRINGAVOOR, TIRUR TALUK 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM R1 BY SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI, SENIOR ADVOCATE ADV. SRI.SAJU.S.A BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. ALEX. M. THOMRA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: smvd N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J ----------------------------------------- Crl.R.P. No. 2048 of 2003. ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of August, 2011. ORDER The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that he had already sent notice by registered post to the accused/revision petitioner but it was returned with an endorsement “not known”. 2. It is a case where the accused was found guilty concurrently of the offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. He was sentenced by the learned Magistrate to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months and to pay Rs.3,000/- as fine. 3. The cheque in question was for Rs.45,000/-/. The accused contended that he had borrowed Rs.5,000/- from one Latheef and as a security for that amount his cheque was given. That case remained un-substantiated or at any rate improbilised. The trial court as well as the appellate court analysed the evidence in the correct perspective and found the accused guilty. I find no reason to differ from the view taken by the two courts below. The conviction is thus Crl.R.P. No. 2048 of 2003 2 confirmed. It is seen that the accused was sentenced to simple imprisonment for 3 months and to pay Rs.3,000/- as fine. Taking note of all the circumstances I find that the sentence is to be modified. In the result; the conviction is confirmed. In supersession of the sentence awarded by the courts below. The accused/revision petitioner is sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay Rs.45,000/- as compensation to PW1, the complainant and in default of payment of compensation, the accused/respondent will undergo simple imprisonment for two months. The accused/revision petitioner is given two months time to pay the amount. N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE smvd