IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER THURSDAY, THE 21ST AUGUST 2008 / \0TH SRAVANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1049 of 2000 ------------------------------------ CRA.342/1998 of II ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM CC.693/1994 of CHIEF JUDL.MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): ------------------------------- K.K.SUNDARA PANICKER RESIDING AT FASHION HOUSE, PALLURUTHY, KOCHI - 6 ANUGRAHA AUTO FINANCE, 42/538 2ND FLOOR, KRISHNA SWAMI CROSS ROAD, KOCHI - 35. BY ADV. SRI.N.K.MOHANLAL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. P.V.SADASIVAN, S/O.VAVAR, THUNDIPARAMBIL HOUSE, DOOR NO.45/88 PACHALAM, KOCHI - 12. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 - BYADV. SRI.M.A.HAKIM SHAH R2 - BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AJI GEORGE. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. Basheer, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No. 1049 of 2000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 21st day of August, 2008 ORDER Petitioner was tried for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act at the instance of respondent No.1 herein. The trial court found the petitioner guilty and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs.35,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three months. It was directed that a sum of Rs.32500/- shall be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C, if the fine amount was realised. In appeal, the above order of conviction and sentence was confirmed by the Sessions Court. Hence this revision petition. 2. The case of the complainant in brief was that the accused had borrowed Rs.30,000/- from him and issued Ext.P1 cheque in discharge of the said debt. But when the cheque was presented for encashment, it was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the accused. He did not discharge the liability in spite of receipt of the statutory demand notice. Pws.1 to 3 were examined on the side of the complainant. Exts.P1 to P9 were also marked. Dws.1 and 2 were examined on the side of the defence. 3. The defence set up by the accused was that he had not borrowed any money from the complainant as alleged. Ext.P1 cheque Crl.R.P.1049/2000 2 was in fact issued to the complainant as security in a loan transaction between the complainant and Dw.2, Rajan who had borrowed a sum of Rs.10,000/- from one Gopi, who was an agent of the complainant. Though Dw.2 had contended that he had discharged the above liability of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant, no satisfactory evidence in this regard was adduced. The trial court noticed that the evidence of Dws.1 and 2 could not be believed at all, particularly since in Ext.P9 reply notice the accused had asserted that the complainant had stolen the cheque leaf in question when he visited the office of the accused. The appellate court, on re-evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence on record had concurred with the finding entered by the trial court. 4. I have carefully perused the documents produced by the complainant. I have also gone through the depositions of the witnesses. I am satisfied that the courts below were justified in holding the petitioner guilty under Section 138 of the Act. In my view, the sentence imposed on the petitioner is also only reasonable. Therefore no interference is warranted with the concurrent orders passed by the courts below. The revision petition fails and it is dismissed. A.K. Basheer Judge. an. Crl.R.P.1049/2000 3 A.K. Basheer, J. Crl.RP.1049 of 2000 O R D E R 21/08/2008