IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH AUGUST 2011 / 2ND BHADRA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 566 of 2002() ----------------------------- CRA.47/2000 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, NORTH PARAVUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED IN CC 58/96 :- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- K.V.JOHN, PROPRIETOR, M/S.DYNAMIC JEWELERS, KALLINGAKUDIYIL, SANTHI NAGAR, EDAPPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.SHAIJAN C.GEORGE SMT.S.A.SHERLY RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE :- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. P.C.PAPPU, PANATT HOUSE, MARKET ROAD, EDAPPALLY P.O., ERNAKULAM 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. ALEX M. THOMBRA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: jvt N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------- Crl.R.P. No.566 of 2002 --------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of August 2011 O R D E R This revision petition is filed by the accused challenging the conviction concurrently entered by the two courts below. The complaint was filed against him alleging offence punishable under Sec.138 of the N.I.Act. The cheque in question was for Rs.85,000/-, drawn on 8.8.1995. Since the cheque was dishonoured due to insufficiency of fund, statutory notice was sent. As the amount was not paid, the complaint was filed. 2. The complainant got himself examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P6 were marked. The accused and another witness were examined as DW1 and DW2 and Ext.D1 was marked. 3. It was contended by the defence that one Johny had obtained a loan of Rs.50,000/- from the complainant Crl.R.P. No.566 of 2002 -: 2 :- and since that amount was not paid to the complainant, there was a mediation with regard to the same. It was further stated that for the amount due from Johny, signed blank cheque leaves were given by the accused as security and those cheque leaves were misused by the complainant and this complaint was filed showing an amount of Rs.85,000/-. It was admitted by the accused that he had handed over the signed blank cheque leaves. According to him he had borrowed only Rs.10,000/- from the complainant. Though he had contended that he repaid the amount no acceptable evidence was produced to prove the same. Though DW2, a priest was examined he deposed that he does not know anything with regard to the transaction between the complainant and the accused/revision petitioner. He only deposed about the transaction between the complainant and Johny mentioned earlier which has nothing to do with the dispute involved in this case. Therefore, the evidence of DW2 is of no help to the accused. Crl.R.P. No.566 of 2002 -: 3 :- 4. The evidence given by DW1 was analysed by the two courts below and found that his case is unacceptable. The evidence given by PW1 that Ext.P1 cheque signed and issued by the accused was accepted by the two courts below. 5. This revision petition was filed in February, 2002. The first respondent (complainant) was reported to be dead. No steps have been taken so far to implead the legal heirs of the deceased complainant. 6. As said earlier there was proper consideration of the evidence by the two courts below. As such this Court finds no reason to upset the same. Since steps were not taken so far, no purpose will be served in adjouring this revision petition. It is seen that the revision petitioner was sentenced by the learned Magistrate to undergo S.I. for six months. The learned Sessions Judge reduced the sentence to S.I. for two months. No amount was ordered to be paid to the complainant as compensation. Hence, considering all Crl.R.P. No.566 of 2002 -: 4 :- the aspects, I find that the sentence is to be modified to do justice to the complainant as well. In the result, this Crl.R.P. is disposed of as stated below :- The conviction of the revision petitioner for the offence under Sec.138 of the N.I.Act is confirmed. In supersession of the sentence awarded by the court below, the revision petitioner is sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay Rs.85,000/- as compensation payable to the complainant, which on the death of the complainant devolves upon his legal heirs. The amount of compensation as aforesaid shall be deposited by the accused/revision petitioner before the trial court within two months from this date. On such deposit, the amount will be released to the legal heirs of the complainant. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Jvt