IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN THURSDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2010 / 28TH SRAVANA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2819 of 2004(B) ---------------------------------------------- CRA.498/2003 of I ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR ST.854/1999 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THRISSUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------------- F.X. AUGUSTINE, S/O. T.A.ROACKY, ROX VILLA, MATHILAKOM P.O., THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER GEORGE, SRI.DILIP MOHAN. RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. K.S. SHAJISH, S/O. K.S.SURENDRAN, KONDARAPPASSERY HOUSE, VADAKKUMMURI P.O., PERINGOTTUKARA, THRISSUR. R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.R.SHAJI. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REKHA C.NAIR. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.2819 of 2004. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 19th day of August, 2010. O R D E R The revision petitioner was convicted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur in ST.No.854/1999 for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to a fine of Rs.2,55,000/- with a default sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. In the event of realization of fine, Rs.2,50,000/- is ordered to be paid to the 2nd respondent as compensation under Sec.357 (1) Crl.P.C. Though he preferred Crl.Appeal No.498/2003 before the Sessions Judge, Thrissur he was not successful. Assailing the concurrent finding of guilt, conviction and sentence, this revision petition was filed. 2. Having heard either side and perusing the impugned judgment, I find that the 2nd respondent had succeeded to establish that the revision petitioner owed a sum of Rs.two lakhs to the 2nd respondent and in discharge Crl.R.P.No.2819 of 2004. -: 2 :- of that liability Exts.P1 and P2 cheques dated 15.11.1998 and 20.11.1998 drawn for Rs.one lakh each were delivered and when sent for collection Exts.P1 and P2 were returned dishonoured for insufficient funds as evidenced by Exts.P3 to P5 memos and that despite the acknowledgment of notice demanding discharge of liability as evidenced by Ext.P8, the liability was not discharged. The evidence of Dw1, the wife of the revision petitioner is that as a security for some business transaction two blank cheques signed by the revision petitioner were delivered to the 2nd respondent by Dw1 and that misusing those cheques the prosecution was launched. The evidence of Dw1 is not at all sufficient enough to contradict the evidence of Pw1 which is supported by presumptions under Sec.118 and 139 of the N.I.Act and that the cheques were drawn for valid consideration and issued in discharge of liability. The evidence of DW1 is not sufficient enough to come to a conclusion that Pw1 got Exts.P1 and P2 in any manner Crl.R.P.No.2819 of 2004. -: 3 :- other than what was deposed by Pw1. In the above circumstance, the courts below had rightly arrived at a conclusion of guilt and the revision petitioner was correctly convicted by the trial court and confirmed in appeal. 3. The trial court was very lenient in confining the sentence to fine. Even if the trial court had gone wrong in awarding sentence, it is only towards leniency. I find no reason to interfere with the sentence also. The revision petition is devoid of merits. Accordingly it is dismissed. The revision petitioner is granted three months time to remit the fine amount. In the event there is any direct payment not exceeding the compensation awarded that shall be given credit to. P.S.GOPINATHAN, (Judge) Kvs/-