IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3350 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.597/2008 of SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKOE ST.1238/2007 of SPECIAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT (MARAD CASES), KOZHIKODE .................... REVN. PETITIONER/ APPELLANT / ACCUSED ------------------------------ K.T. VIJAYAN, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. CHIRUKANDAN, SANITATION WORKER, HEALTH INSPECTOR OFFICE, VIth CIRCLE, BUS STAND BUILDING, PALAYAM.P.O, CHALAPPURAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR. P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN SMT. BINDU GEORGE RESPONDENTS / COMPLAINANT AND STATE ------------------------------------ 1. C.K. SHYJU, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O. CHANNANKUZHIYIL BALAN, CHANNANKUZHIYIL HOUSE, VALAYANAD AMSOM DESOM, MANKAVE, KOZHIKODE. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: kkms/ P.S. GOPINATHAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No. 3350 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of November, 2009 O R D E R 1. Revision petitioner was found guilty by the Special Judicial Magistrate of the First Class (Marad Cases) Kozhikode for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in S.T. No.1238/2007. He was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment till rising of the court and ordered to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation to the 1st respondent/complainant under Section 357 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Though he preferred Criminal Appeal No. 597/2008, he was not successful. 2. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence as confirmed in appeal, this revision petition was filed. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and perusing the judgments of the courts below I find that the 1st respondent who was examined as PW1 had succeeded in establishing that the revision petitioner Crl.R.P.No. 3350 of 2009 2 borrowed a sum of Rs.25,000/- from the 1st respondent and in discharge of that liability Ext.P1 cheque dated 31.07.2007 for the said amount drawn on Punjab National Bank, Mankavu Branch was issued and that when Ext.P1 cheque was sent for collection through South Malabar Gramin Bank it was returned dishonoured for want of sufficient funds as evidenced by Ext.P2 memo dated 3.8.2007. A lawyer notice, copy of which was marked as Ext.P3 dated 16.08.2007 was caused, demanding discharge of the liability. Despite the acknowledgment of the notice on 24.08.2007 as evidenced by Ext.P5, the liability was not discharged. The revision petitioner had taken a defence that he had paid a portion of the amount in January 2008 and the balance would be paid soon. There is nothing to show that what was deposed by PW1 is not true. Liability is not discharged. But the plea is one of discharge. Other than the suggestion, there is no evidence to prove the discharge. In the absence of materials on record regarding Crl.R.P.No. 3350 of 2009 3 discharge, the evidence of PW1 supported by Exts.P1 to P5 remains uncontroverted. I find no error, impropriety or illegality committed by the courts below in arriving at the conclusion of guilt. The conviction is based on cogent evidence. 4. The courts below were very lenient in confining the substantive sentence to imprisonment till rising of the court and awarding compensation equal to that of the cheque amount. The sentence is very lenient and requires no interference. The revision petition is devoid of any merit. 5. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed. The revision petitioner is granted six months time to pay compensation. Till then, the bail bond executed by him will remain in force. P.S. GOPINATHAN, JUDGE shg/