IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2009 / 1ST ASWINA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2969 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.278/2007 of SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD ST.788/2004 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, PATTAMBI .......................... PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------------- P.V.NISSAR S/O. MUHAMMED UNNI, 30 YEARS,POTHINAVALAPPIL HOUSE, V.K.KADAVU, POST THRITHALA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI SRI.R.SREEHARI RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINAT: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. UMMER S/O. MAMMI,26 YEARS, PULAVAZHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, POST THATHANAMPULLI, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. ADV. SRI. RITHWIK, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2969 of 2009 ORDER ON CRL. M.A.NO. 9166 OF 2009 IN CRL. R.P. NO.2969 OF 2009 DISMISSED SD/- 23/9/2009 P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE skj P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2969 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2009 ORDER The revision petitioner is the accused in S.T.No.788/2004 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Pattambi. The second respondent herein prosecuted the revision petitioner alleging offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial court after due trial arrived a conclusion of guilt. Consequently the revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced to simple imprsionment for one month. He was further directed to pay Rs.32,000/-, the cheque amount as compensation to the second respondent with usual default clause. 2. Assailing the above conviction and sentence Crl.Appeal No.278/2007 was preferred. The learned Additional Sessions Judge by judgment dated 8/7/2009 confirmed the conviction. The substantive sentence was reduced to till rising of the court. The direction to pay compensation was sustained. Crl.R.P.No.2969 of 2009 2 3. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence as reduced in appeal, this revision petition was filed. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and perusing the impugned judgment, I find that the second respondent had succeeded to establish that the revision petitioner owed a sum of Rs.32,000/- to the second respondent and in discharge of the said liability Ext.P1 cheque was issued and that when Ext.P1 was sent for collection it was returned bounced for insufficiency of funds. Demanding discharge of the liability, a lawyer notice was issued as evidenced by Ext.P3 series. Despite acknowledgment of the notice as evidenced by Ext.P4 the liability was not discharged. Hence the courts below had rightly appreciated the evidence and arrived a conclusion of guilt. I find no error, illegality or impropriety. The conviction under challenge is substantiated. The lower appellate court was very lenient in reducing substantive sentence. There is no reason to interfere with the sentence also. 5. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed. The revision petitioner is granted 4 months time for payment of the Crl.R.P.No.2969 of 2009 3 compensation amount provided he executes a bond for Rs.10,000/- with 2 solvent sureties each for like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court within 15 days. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE skj.