IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 4TH OCTOBER 2010 / 12TH ASWINA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2785 of 2010() ------------------------------ CRA.173/2009 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURTS (ADHOC), MAVELIKKARA CC.374/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, CHENGANNUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED ----------------------------------------------------- SHAJAHAN, S/O.ALIYAR KUTTY, PAZHAYAKALA MELATHIL, KOLLAKADAVU P.O., CHENGANNUR. BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) SRI.A.R.DILEEP SRI.V.SUNIL KUMAR (PANACHAMOODU) SRI.H.JAWHAR RESPONDENT(S): STATE AND COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. MADHUSOODHANA KURUP, S/O.KUNJU KRISHNA PILLAI, KALLOTTU PADEETTATHIL MOW RESIDING AT MANU BHAVANAM, CHENGANNUR-689 121. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. V. TEK CHAND THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: SVS/ V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------- Crl. R.P.No.2785 of 2010 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of October, 2010. O R D E R The accused in a prosecution for an offence u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is the revision petitioner, as he is aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence imposed by the courts below. 2. The case of the complainant is that the accused/revision petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and towards the discharge of that debt due to the complainant, he issued a cheque dated 23.02.2007, which when presented for encashment dishonoured, as there was no sufficient fund in the account maintained by the accused and the cheque amount was not repaid inspite of a formal demand notice and thus the revision petitioner has committed the offence punishable u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. With the same allegation, the complainant approached the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chengannoor, by filing a formal complaint, upon which cognizance was taken u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Crl. R.P.No.2785/2010 2 Act and instituted C.C.No.374/2007. During the trial of the case complainant himself was examined and Exts.P1 to P5 were marked. From the side of the defence DW1 was examined but is none other than the accused and have no documentary evidence is produced. On the basis of the available materials and evidence on record, the trial court has found that the cheque in question was issued by the revision petitioner/accused for the purpose of discharging his debt due to the complainant. Thus accordingly the trial court found that, the complainant has established the case against the accused/revision petitioner and consequently found that the accused is guilty and thus convicted him u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. On such conviction, the trial court sentenced the revision petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months and also directed to pay a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant u/s.357 (3) of Cr.P.C. and no default sentence is fixed. 3. Though an appeal was filed, at the instance of the revision petitioner/accused by judgment dated 15.07.2010 in Crl.A.173/09, the Court of Addl. District and Sessions Crl. R.P.No.2785/2010 3 Judge Fast Track (Adhoc) Court, Mavelikkara, allowed the appeal only in part and thus while confirming the conviction and sentence is modified and reduced the imprisonment till the rising of the court. While retaining the direction to pay the compensation amount to the complainant, the appellate court has imposed the default sentence of 4 months simple imprisonment and the revision petitioner was given 6 months time to pay the compensation amount to the complainant. It is the above conviction and sentence challenged in this revision petition. 4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and also perused the judgments of the courts below. 5. Reiterating the stand taken by the accused/revision petitioner during the trial and appeal, submitted that the complainant has not established the transaction and also the execution and issuance of the cheque. But no case is made out to interfere with the concurrent findings of the trial court as well as the lower appellate court. Therefore, I find no merit in the revision petition and accordingly the Crl. R.P.No.2785/2010 4 conviction recorded by the courts below against the revision petitioner u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, is approved. 6. As the appellate court has already granted 6 months time to pay the compensation amount and as such there is no appeal or revision at the instance of the complainant, no interference is warranted with respect to the sentence of imprisonment and the direction to pay the compensation. In the result, this revision petition is dismissed confirming the conviction of the revision petitioner u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act as recorded by the courts below and also confirming the sentence, order to pay the compensation amount and also the default sentence as ordered by the appellate court. Criminal revision petition is dismissed accordingly. Sd/- V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. ss/. //True copy// P.A to Judge