IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 2ND ASWINA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 587 of 2004() ----------------------------------------- CRA.342/2002 of III ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC) FAST TRACK-I, THRISSUR ST.2696/1999 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, THRISSUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------------------------------- T.C. BABU, S/O CHACKO, THEKKANATHU HOUSE, THAIKKATTUSSERY DESOM, EDAKKUNNI VILLAGE, THALORE P.O., THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.A.C.DEVY RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE: ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. MAGASTAR KURIES & LOANS PVT.LTD., REPRESENTED BY MANAGER, P.M. ABDUL RASHEED, S/O. MUHAMMED MASTER, NJEMANGAD P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. R1 BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP MATHEW, SRI.G.G.MANOJ. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.SABU SREEDHARAN. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.587 of 2004. = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 24th day of September, 2010. O R D E R The revision petitioner was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Thrissur in ST.No.2696/1999 on his file for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to simple imprisonment for one month and to pay Rs.27,900/- as compensation to the first respondent/defacto complainant. Though, he preferred Criminal Appeal No.342/2002, he was not successful. Assailing the concurrent findings of guilt, conviction and sentence, this revision petition was filed. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the first respondent and perusing the judgments, I find that the first respondent through the evidence of Pw1 and Exts.P1 to P12 had succeeded to establish that out of a kuri transaction the revision petitioner owed a sum of Rs.27,900/- to the first Crl.RP.No.587/2004. -: 2 :- respondent and in discharge of that liability Ext.P1 cheque was issued and that when Ext.P1 was sent for collection it was returned dishonoured as evidenced by Exts.P2 and P3 memos and that despite the acknowledgment of notice demanding discharge of liability as evidenced by Exts.P4 and P6, the liability was not discharged. The revision petitioner has no good defence at all. It is also pertinent to note that after acknowledging the notice demanding discharge of liability, the revision petitioner remained silent. The silence of the revision petitioner persuades me to arrive at a conclusion that, in fact, he has no good defence. The courts below had correctly appreciated the evidence and came to the conclusion of guilt. I find no reason to interfere with the findings. 3. Taking note that financial difficulties led the revision petitioner to face the prosecution upon a kuri transaction, I find that the revision petitioner is entitled to some leniency in sentence and that a sentence of Crl.RP.No.587/2004. -: 3 :- imprisonment till the rising of the court and a fine of Rs.32,000/- would meet the ends of justice. In the result, the revision petition is allowed in part. While confirming the conviction, the substantial sentence is reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and a fine of Rs.32,000/- (Rupees thirty-two thousand only) with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for three months. Out of the fine amount, if realised, Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) shall be paid to the first respondent as compensation under Sec.357(1) of the Crl.P.C. In the event there is already any deposit, that shall be given credit to. On such deposit, the first respondent is at liberty to withdraw the compensation amount. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE. Kvs/-