IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 8TH ASWINA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3044 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.800/2007 of II ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM CC.68/2006 of JUDICIAL 1ST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT V,NEYYATTINKARA .................... REVISION PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT:ACCUSED: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- PRAMEELA, W/O.AJITHKUMAR, KATTAKKALIL VEEDU, VELLAYANI, NEMOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-20. BY ADVS. MR.VELLAYANI SUNDARA RAJU, SMT.P.MEENAKUMARI. RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS:COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. AJIKUMAR, S/O.VELAPPAN NAIR, ANURAG GRAMAN, PARASALA P.O. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Cr.R.P.No.3044 of 2009. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 30th day of September, 2009. O R D E R The revision petitioner is the accused in CC.No.68/2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-V, Neyyattinkara. The second 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 simple imprisonment for nine months. She was further directed to pay Rs.3,05,000/-, the cheque amount as compensation, to the 2nd respondent under Section 357(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. In appeal, the Addl.Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram confirmed the conviction. But the substantive sentence was reduced to imprisonment till rising of the court. Compensation was enhanced to Rs.3,10,000/- from Rs.3,05,000/-. Assailing the Cr.R.P.No.3044 of 2009. -: 2 :- legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence as modified in appeal, this revision petition was filed. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and perusing the judgment impugned, I find that the 2nd respondent, who was examined as Pw1, supported by Exts. P1 to P7, had succeeded to establish that the revision petitioner owed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to the 2nd respondent and in discharge of that liability, Ext.P1 cheque dated was issued and that when Ext.P1 was sent for collection, it was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds, as evidenced by Ext.P2 and P3 memos. 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, the liability was not discharged. There is no contra evidence. The revision petitioner has got no good defence. I find that the courts below had correctly appreciated the evidence and arrived a Cr.R.P.No.3044 of 2009. -: 3 :- finding of guilt. The conviction under challenge is unassailable. The lower appellate court was very lenient in reducing sentence. If at all erred, it is towards leniency only. The direction to pay compensation is also appropriate. Sentence is no way exorbitant. I find no error or illegality or impropriety in the impugned judgments. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. 4. The revision petitioner is granted six months' time for payment of compensation, provided, she executes a bail bond for Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) with two solvent sureties each of like sum to the satisfaction of the trial court within fifteen days. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE. Kvs/-