IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 26TH OCTOBER 2009 / 4TH KARTHIKA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3306 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- CRL.A. 451/2008 OF ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKODE, CC.NO.186/2007 OF JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PAYYOLI. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------------------------------------- SAJITHA, W/O.RAGHUNATH, 33 YEARS, KIZHAKKAYIL HOUSE, MELADI AMSOM DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.P.ABDUL JALEEL. RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. GOVINDAN, S/O.CHATHU, 54 YEARS, ARANGOTH, IRINGAL P.O., KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. STATE, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. JAYAKRISHNAN. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.3306 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of October, 2009 ORDER The revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.186 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Payyoli. The first respondent 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 undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. In appeal, the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Kozhikode confirmed the verdict of guilt and conviction. The sentence was reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and a fine of Rs.75,000/- with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for 3 months. Fine amount was ordered to be paid to the 1st respondent as compensation under Section 357(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the conviction and sentence, as modified in appeal, this revision petition was filed. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the revision Crl.R.P.No.3306 of 2009 2 petitioner and perusing the judgment impugned, I find that the first respondent, who was examined as P.W.1, supported by Exts.P1 to P5, had succeeded to establish that the revision petitioner owed a sum of Rs.75,000/- to the first respondent and in discharge of the said liability, Ext.P1 cheque dated 05.04.2007 was issued and that when Ext.P1 was sent for collection, it was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds, as evidenced by Ext.P2 memo. Though a lawyer notice, copy of which was marked as Ext.P3 dated 10.04.07, was caused demanding discharge of the liability and it was acknowledged by the revision petitioner as evidenced by Ext.P5, the liability was not discharged. Neither any reply. 3. I find that the courts below had correctly appreciated the evidence and arrived a finding of guilt. The conviction under challenge based on cogent evidence is unassailable. The appellate court was very lenient in reducing the substantive sentence to imprisonment till rising of the court. It requires no interference. Imposing fine while reducing the substantive Crl.R.P.No.3306 of 2009 3 sentence and order to pay compensation out of fine is quite appropriate. I find no error or illegality or impropriety in the impugned judgment. Revision petition is devoid of merits. Accordingly it is dismissed. The revision petitioner is granted six months time for payment of fine. Till then the bond executed by him would remain in force. The trial court shall see the execution of sentence and report compliance. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE. skj.