IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3422 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.297/2007 of ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS (ADHOC) FAST TRACK COURT III, PATHANAMTHITTA ST.117/2005 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... REVN. PETITIONER/ APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------ E. SWAMY NATHAN, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. GOPALANACHARI, RESIDING AT SAJU BHAVAN, KUMBAZHA, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. MR. K.SHAJ MR. SAJJU.S RESPONDENTS/ COMPLAINANT / STATE ------------------------------------ 1. M/S. SREE GOKULAM CHIT & FINANCE CO. PVT. LTD., NO.66, ARCOT ROAD, KODAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI, HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT PATHANAMTHITTA REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER V.J. JOHN, VETTUMANNIL HOUSE, VAYYATTUPUZHA.P.O, CHITTAR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: kkms/ P.S. GOPINATHAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No. 3422 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of November, 2009 O R D E R 1. Revision petitioner is the accused in S.T.No.117/2005 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathanamthitta. The 1st respondent herein prosecuted the revision petitioner alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. After trial the revision petitioner was found guilty. Accordingly he was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay Rs.17,000/- as compensation to the 1st respondent under Section 357 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On failure to pay compensation the revision petitioner was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. 2. Aggrieved by the above conviction and sentence, Criminal Appeal No.297/2007 was filed by the revision petitioner. The Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc) Fast Track-III, Pathanamthitta dismissed the appeal. Assailing Crl.R.P.No. 3422 of 2009 2 the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence as confirmed in appeal, this revision petition was filed. 3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and perusing the judgments of the courts below, I find that the 1st respondent, by the testimony of PW1, supported by Exts.P1 to P7 had succeeded to establish that out of a chitty transaction a sum of Rs.14,620/- was due from the revision petitioner to the 1st respondent and in discharge of the said liability Ext.P2 cheque drawn on Pathanamthitta District Co-operative Bank Ltd, Pathanamthitta Branch was issued and that when Ext.P2 was sent for collection, it was returned dishonoured for insufficiency of funds as evidenced by Ext.P3 memo. Though a lawyer notice, copy of which was marked as Ext.P4, was caused demanding discharge of the liability and it was acknowledged by the revision petitioner as evidenced by Ext.P6, the liability was not discharged. The Crl.R.P.No. 3422 of 2009 3 revision petitioner took up a defence that he had discharged the entire liability. But, no evidence was let in support of that plea. The revision petitioner also did not respond to the notice demanding discharge of the liability. In fact there is no evidence on the side of the revision petitioner to controvert the evidence of PW1. There is no reason to disbelieve PW1 or to reject Exts.P1 to P7. I find that the courts below had correctly appreciated the evidence and rightly arrived a conclusion of guilty. 4. Taking note that the revision petitioner is a coolie aged 45 and he had to face the prosecution out of a Kuri transaction, I find that he is entitled to a little leniency in sentence. I therefore find that imprisonment till rising of the court and compensation as ordered by the trial court would meet the ends of justice. 5. In the result the revision petition allowed in part. While confirming the conviction, the sentence is reduced to imprisonment till rising of the court and to pay Rs.17,000/- Crl.R.P.No. 3422 of 2009 4 as compensation to the 1st respondent under Section 357 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the event of default to pay the compensation, the revision petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for two months. 6. The revision petitioner is granted three months time to pay the compensation. Till then the bail bond executed by him shall remain in force. P.S. GOPINATHAN, JUDGE shg/