IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 366 of 2006(A) -------------------------------------- CRA.340/2002 of I ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM CC.497/2000 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KOLLAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED : ----------------------------------------------------- SURENDRAN, PALATHARAMEL VEEDU, THEKKEMURI CHERRY, EAST KALLADA VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR SRI.S.M.ALTHAF RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT : ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. K.J.VINCENT, THAZHAVILA VEEDU, CHEMMAKKADU P.O. PERINADU VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.THOMAS JOHN AMBOOKEN SRI.C.RAJENDRAN - R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING : Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 366 of 2006(A) ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.1046 OF 2006 IN CRL.R.P.NO.366 OF 2006 DISMISSED 17.11.2008 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE -TRUE COPY- P.A. TO JUDGE pac M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------- CRL. R.P.No. 366 OF 2006 --------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of November, 2008 ORDER This Revision Petition is preferred against the judgment in Crl. Appeal No. 340/2002 of the First Addl. Sessions Judge, Kollam. The Revision Petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two months and was awarded compensation of Rs. 45,000/- under Section 357(3) of Criminal Procedure Code. It was challenged in appeal and the same was confirmed by the appellate court. It is against that decision, the present revision is preferred. 2. Heard learned counsel for both sides. It is the case of the complainant that the revision petitioner had borrowed a sum of Rs. 40,000/- and towards the discharge of the liability, had issued Ext. P1 cheque which when presented for encashment returned with the endorsement “insufficiency of funds”. In spite of statutory notice, the amount was not paid and hence proceedings were initiated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The defence appears to be that the cheque has been given only as a security. Both the courts below elaborately considered the matter Crl. R.P. No. 366/2006 2 and found that the evidence of PW1 coupled with the evidence produced in the case substantiated the contentions that Ext. P1 cheque has been executed and issued by revision petitioner towards discharge of the liability and that the complaint is entitled to the presumption under Section 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. There has been no evidence to rebut presumptions by the accused namely the revision petitioner. Therefore, I do not find any ground to interfere with the finding of guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act since it does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or perversity, which requires interference at the hands of the court by exercising the revisionary jurisdiction. 3. Both the courts below had applied their mind and had only awarded a very reasonable sentence which I feel do not call for any interference. So I confirm the finding on sentence also. In the result, the Crl. R.P. is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN,JUDGE vkm