IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 17TH MAY 2010 / 27TH VAISAKHA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1462 of 2003() ------------------------------ CRA.231/2002 of SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR ST.3004/1999 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, THRISSUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- P.N.BAIJU S/O. PULLEKATTIL NARAYANAN, PAZHUVIL WEST, THRISSUR DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.DILIP J. AKKARA RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------- 1. M/S. KIZHUPILIKKARA KURIES AND LOANS (P) LTD., REGD.OFFICE A.N.D.P. BUILDINGS, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER P.K.GOPALAN S/O. PAMBUNGATTIL KRISHNAN, THOKETUKARA, KOZHUKULLY, AYYAPPANKAVU P.O., THRISSUR 2. STATE OF KERAL, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL FOR R1 R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.A.SALIM THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.M.APPL. .NO.6356/03 IN CRL.R.P.1462/03 DISMISSED 17/5/10 SD/-M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,JUDGE. //True copy// PA to Judge. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. --------------------------------------------- CRL.R.P.NO.1462 OF 2003 --------------------------------------------- Dated 17th May, 2010 O R D E R Petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one month and a compensation of Rs.30,000/- to the first respondent/complainant under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act by Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Thrissur in S.T.3004/1999. Though petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence before the Sessions court, Thrissur in Crl.A.231/2002, learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and modified the sentence to imprisonment for ten days and compensation of Rs.40,000/-. Revision is filed challenging the conviction and sentence. Crrp 1462/03 2 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and first respondent were heard. 3. Ext.P1 cheque for Rs.30,000/- was admittedly drawn in the account maintained by the revision petitioner. It was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds when presented for encashment. First respondent admittedly complied with the statutory formalities by demanding the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque within the period in writing and lodging the complaint within the statutory period. Defence raised by the petitioner was that Ext.P1 cheque was not issued by him towards discharge of an existing debt and the signature in the cheque was forged. Learned Magistrate and learned Sessions Judge appreciated the evidence properly and found that evidence of PW1 with Crrp 1462/03 3 regard to the issuance of cheque is trustworthy and reliable. Though petitioner contended that Ext.P1 cheque was not issued towards discharge of existing liability, he did not adduce any evidence. On going through the records and judgments of courts below, I do not find any reason to re-appreciate the evidence, as the appreciation of evidence was not perverse. In fact evidence was properly appreciated. Evidence establish that Ext.P1 cheque was issued towards discharge of an existing liability and it was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds and first respondent had complied with all the statutory formalities. In such circumstances, conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is perfectly legal and proper and warrants no interference. Crrp 1462/03 4 4. Then the only question is with regard to the sentence. Learned Sessions Judge modified the sentence to imprisonment for ten days and compensation of Rs.40,000/- with a default sentence of three months. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that interest of justice will be met if substantive sentence is modified to imprisonment till rising of court and maintaining the compensation with default sentence. Revision is allowed in part. Conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is confirmed. Sentence is modified to imprisonment till rising of court and fine of Rs.40,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for three months. Petitioner is permitted to deposit Crrp 1462/03 5 the amount before the Magistrate or to pay directly to the first respondent and produce the receipt for payment of compensation within two weeks from today. It is for the learned Magistrate to satisfy the genuineness of the receipt. If not, learned Magistrate to execute the sentence. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.