IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 2ND ASWINA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 782 of 2000() ----------------------------- CRA.111/1999 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT-II, KOZHIKODE CC.167/1997 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, VADAKARA .................... REVISION PETITIONER:APPELLANT:ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- KUTTIKKATTIL ABDULLA, S/O.AMMED, KUTTIKKATTIL VEEDU, (P.O.)VALLIAD, (VIA) VILLIAPPALLY, VADAKARA. BY ADV. SRI.C.VATHSALAN RESPONDENTS:RESPONDENTS:COMPLAINANT & STATE: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. P.K.GOPALAN, S/O.KANNAN, KANNOTH HOUSE, V.O.ROAD, VADAKARA. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.V.K.RAVINDRAN FOR R1 SMT.M.M.KRIPA SRI.P.V.MOHANAN FOR R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR – R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON CRL.M.P.NO.4166/2000 IN CRL.R.P.NO.782/2000 DISMISSED 24/09/2008 SD/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.782 OF 2000 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of September, 2008 O R D E R The revision petitioner stands convicted and sentenced for offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the allegation that he issued a cheque for Rs.45,000/- in discharge of a debt due to the complainant and on presentation, that cheque was returned dishonoured due to insufficiency of fund and that on notice of intimation of such dishonour, the accused did not pay the amount covered by the cheque. The court of session confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on him by the court of first instance. 2. The court of first instance heard the version of the complainant as PW1 and the Manager of the Bank as PW2. Exts.P1 to P7 were marked, which include the cheque, notice of return and other materials relevant under the statutory provision. The complainant deposed in terms of the allegation in the complaint regarding the borrowal of the amount and the Crl.RP.782/00 Page numbers issuance of Ext.P1 cheque. He also spoke of all the other attendant details, which provides the cause of action for the complaint. Except a vague suggestion that the revision petitioner had not received any amount from the complainant, nothing was brought out in cross examination. Evidence of PW1 was found to be trustworthy by the courts below. The details regarding the cheque and its dishonour was corroborated by the evidence of PW2. With the exhibits on record, the complainant established that notice was issued to the accused and it was returned unclaimed. I am satisfied that the courts below have considered the evidence on record and no argument is advanced in any manner showing that the appreciation of evidence is not in accordance with law. 3. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any ground to interfere with the conviction. However, having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances, in modification of the sentence imposed by the courts below, it is ordered that: Crl.RP.782/00 Page numbers (i) The revision is allowed in part. (ii) The finding of guilt and the conviction are confirmed. (iii) The sentence imposed by the courts below on the revision petitioner is vacated. In supersession thereof, the revision petitioner/accused is sentenced: (a) to undergo imprisonment till rising of the court, for a day; (b) to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of that, to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days; and (c) to pay compensation of Rs.45,000/- to the complainant. Any amount already deposited in terms of the interim orders will be given due credit to against the compensation. Crl.RP.782/00 Page numbers (d) Fine, on recovery, is to be released to the complainant as compensation. The learned Magistrate shall take necessary steps for execution of the modified sentence hereby imposed. The revision petitioner shall appear and his sureties shall produce him before the court below on 28-11-2008 to suffer the sentence, with proof of having satisfied the compensation. Needless to say, the learned Magistrate shall take necessary action against the revision petitioner and his sureties under Section 446 Crl.P.C., if he does not appear as directed above. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge kkb. Crl.RP.782/00 Page numbers ======================= THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J Crl.R.P.No.782 OF 2000 O R D E R 24TH SEPTEMBER, 2008. =======================