IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2009 / 27TH ASWINA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3015 of 2009() --------------------------------- (CRA.97/2009 of THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE (AD- HOC-I), THODUPUZHA AND IN ST.1211/2005 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, NEDUMKANDOM) ........................................................................................................ REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- K.A.NAJEEB, S/O.ALIYAR, KALARICKAL HOUSE, THOOKKUPALAM KARA, PARATHODU VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO SMT.C.M.CHARISMA SRI.N.A.SHAFEEK SRI.K.S.SALEESH RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE ----------------------------------------------- 1. RAJENDRAN, S/O.BHASKARAN, SREE VILLA HOUSE, NEDUMKANDAM KARA, PARATHODU VILLAGE. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S. GOPINATHAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Crl. R.P.No. 3015 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of October, 2009 ORDER Revision petitioner is the accused in S.T.No.1211/05 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Nedumkandam. The first respondent herein filed the complaint against the revision petitioner alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. The revision petitioner pleaded not guilty. Hence he was tried. After trial the learned Magistrate found the revision petitioner guilty. He was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year with direction to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation to the first respondent with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for three months. Aggrieved by the above conviction and sentence, the revision petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal Crl.R.P.No.3015/2009 2 No.97/08 before the Sessions Judge, Thodupuzha. The Additional Sessions Judge Adhoc-I, to whom the appeal was made over, by judgment dated 22.7.09, concurred with the lower court in finding the revision petitioner guilty. Consequently, the conviction was confirmed. The substantive sentence was reduced to imprisonment till rising of the Court. The order to pay compensation was sustained. 3. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence as modified in appeal, this revision was preferred. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and perused the judgments of the Courts below. 4. The first respondent who was examined as PW1 supported by Exts.P1 to P5 had succeeded to establish that on 15.1.2005 the revision petitioner borrowed a sum of Crl.R.P.No.3015/2009 3 Rs.1,50,000/- from the first respondent and in discharge of the said liability Ext.P1 cheque dated 31.3.05 drawn on Nedumkandam Urban Co-operative Bank, Thukupalam Branch was issued and that when Ext.P1 was sent for collection, it was dishonored for “full cover not received” as evidenced by Ext.P2 series memos. The reason, “full cover not received” is another usage for insufficiency of funds. A lawyer notice dated 6.8.2005, copy of which was marked as Ext.P3 was caused demanding discharge of liability. Despite the acknowledgment of the notice, as evidenced by Ext.P5, the liability was not discharged. The evidence of PW1 is supported by the legal presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Installments Act that Ext.P1 was drawn for valuable consideration and delivered to PW1 in discharge of the liability. 5. The revision petitioner took up a defence that a blank unsigned cheque was given to one Asha, which was Crl.R.P.No.3015/2009 4 somehow or other obtained by the first respondent who forged the signature of the revision petitioner and presented for collection and thereafter the prosecution was launched. In support of his plea of forgery, the manager of the bank was examined as DW1. Ext.D1 to D3 were also marked. The revision petitioner was also examined as DW2. It is pertinent to note that DW1, the manager of the bank had deposed that the signature contained in Ext.P1 is that of the revision petitioner. DW1 was not declared hostile. There is no case that DW1 had turned hostile against the revision petitioner and had adduced false evidence against him. In the above facts and circumstances, the evidence of DW1 also supported the evidence on the side of the first respondent. The plea of forgery was belied by the evidence of DW1. Though, the revision petitioner has got the case that a blank unsigned cheque was given to one Asha, no attempt was made to examine the said Asha and bring on record as to how the cheque given to Asha was happened to Crl.R.P.No.3015/2009 5 be with the first respondent. In the above circumstances, the courts below disbelieved DW2 and had correctly appreciated the evidence and rightly arrived the conclusion of guilt. I find no good reason to interfere with the conclusion of guilty in exercise of the revisional powers. 6. Appellate Court was very lenient in reducing the sentence to one of imprisonment till rising of the Court. If at all erred, it is only towards the leniency. The direction to pay compensation is also quite appropriate. I find no reason to interfere with the conviction and sentence. The revision petition is devoid of merits. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed. Taking note that the revision petitioner is a youngster and that the financial difficulties led him to face the prosecution, I grant him six months time for payment of the compensation, provided, he executes a bond for Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Crl.R.P.No.3015/2009 6 Fifteen thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE SS