IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER FRIDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2010 / 11TH ASHADHA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1136 of 2004 (B) -------------------------------------------------- CRA.204/2001 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), KOTTAYAM CC.748/2000 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-III, KOTTAYAM .................... CRIMINAL REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ K.V.JOSEKUTTY, KALAVARA HOUSE, THIRUMALA WARD, THATHAMPALLY P.O., ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.KRISHNAN NAIR RESPONDENTS / RESPONDENTS IN CRA./STATE & COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. 2. M.K.JOYICHAN, MATTAPARAMBIL, KURISUMOODU P.O., CHANGANASSERY. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.B.JAYASURYA SRI.M.C.CHERIAN FOR R2 SMT.SARAMMA CHERIAN FOR R2 SMT.ASHA CHERIAN FOR R2 SRI.E.D.GEORGE FOR R2 SRI.P.M.SANEER FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No.1136 OF 2004 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 2nd day of July 2010 ORDER When this case is taken up for consideration, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has no instructions from the petitioner. According to him, petitioner had taken away the case bundle from him and had not returned the file thereafter nor had he given any further instructions in the matter. Petitioner’s name is called in the court. He is absent. 2. The above revision petition has been filed challenging the concurrent order of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 3. The trial court convicted and sentenced the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for six months after holding him guilty under Section 138 of the Act. The said order of conviction and sentence was confirmed in appeal by the Sessions Court. However, while dismissing the appeal, the appellate court directed the petitioner/accused to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month. 4. The case of the complainant was that the accused had issued Ext.P1 cheque dated March 25, 1998 for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- in discharge of a legally enforceable debt. The said cheque was dishonoured when it was presented for encashment. Though a statutory notice was issued, the petitioner/accused did not discharge the liability. Crl.R.P.No.1136 OF 2004 :: 2 :: 5. The complainant got himself examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P8 were marked on his side. There was no oral or documentary evidence on the side of the defence. The case of the petitioner/accused was that he had borrowed only a sum of Rs.25,000/- from the complainant and issued a blank signed cheque as security for the loan amount. He further contended that he had repaid the loan amount to the complainant. 6. But the courts below noticed that all the entries in the cheque were made in the handwriting of the petitioner himself. There was no contra evidence from the side of the petitioner to disbelieve the case of the complainant. In short, the courts below, rightly in my view, found that the complainant had satisfactorily proved his case. I do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent order of conviction and sentence passed by the courts below. There is no merit in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this revision petition. Therefore, the revision petition is dismissed. (A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE) jes