IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2008 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 736 of 2000() ------------------------------------------ CC.726/1995 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, KUNNAMKULAM CRA.278/1998 of SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ ACCUSED --------------------------- K.K.KUMARA, S/O. KANDAKUTTY, KALLINGAL HOUSE, P.O., KANIPAYUR, KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.DILEEP KUMAR RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/ COMPLAINANT ---------------------- 1. K.K.CHANDRA, S/O. KUNJAN, KANDIRUTHY HOUSE ARAVAI, P.O. PAZHANJI, KUNNAMKULAM THRISSUR DIST. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.D.ANIL KUMAR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER, J. ----------------------------------- Crl.Rev. Petition No. 736 of 2000 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 21st day of May 2008. O R D E R The petitioner who was concurrently found guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, by the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court, has preferred this revision petition challenging the Order of conviction and sentence. The trial court sentenced the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. However, the learned Sessions Judge while confirming the Order of conviction modified the sentence and directed the petitioner to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay an amount of Rs.28,000/- (Rupees twenty eight thousand only) as compensation under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The case of the complainant was that respondent No.1/accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.25,000/- from him and issued Ext.P1 cheque in discharge of the said liability. But when the cheque was presented for encashment, it was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds in the account. The statutory demand notice was returned “unclaimed”. 3. The complainant was examined as PW2 and his witness was examined as PW1. Exts.P1 to P9 were marked on the side of the complainant. There was no oral or documentary evidence on the side of the accused. 4. The defence set by the accused was that his son had borrowed a sum of Rs.12,000/- from the complainant. But since his son did not have a bank account the accused happened to hand over a blank signed cheque to the complainant in discharge of the above liability. The accused further contended that the complainant had inflated the amount of liability and misused the blank signed cheque for the purpose of launching the prosecution. The learned Magistrate, obviously, did not accept the above version given by the accused. The accused did not have a case that he had not signed the cheque in question. Though, he had contended that his son borrowed only an amount of Rs.12,000/- from the complainant, the said contention was not substantiated in any manner known to law. The courts below have concurrently found that the complainant had established his case satisfactorily. The sentence imposed on the petitioner by the Sessions Court, in my view, is eminently just and reasonable. I do not find any merit in the contentions raised by the petitioner. Revision petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. (A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE) skr