IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2009 / 4TH BHADRA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 341 of 2000() ----------------------------- CRA.72/1998 of SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR ST.3606/1995 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, KUNNAMKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------------------------- MAIDEENKUTTY, S/O. ALI MOHAMMED, MULLAMADAKKAL HOUSE, KARIKKOD P.O. KARIKKAD VILLAGE DESOM, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.N.J.JOHNSON RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS: -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. DAVID, S/O. PRATHAPAN, KOLLANNUR HOUSE, KARIKKAD VILLAGE DESOM, KARIKKOD P.O. THALAPPILLY TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/08/2009, THE COURT ON 26/08/2009 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No. 341 of 2000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the ...th day of August, 2009 O R D E R This revision petition is filed by the accused in S.T.No. 3606 of 1995 on the file of the J.F.C.M., Kunnamkulam. The first respondent herein is the complainant in that case. S.T. 3606 of 1995 is a case based upon a private complaint filed against the accused under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 2. The facts of the case are briefly as follows: The complainant and accused are friends. On 2.4.1992, the accused borrowed Rs.40,000/- from the complainant and the accused issued a cheque for that amount dt.15.4.1992 in discharge of that liability. When the complainant presented that cheque for encashment, it was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds. The complainant issued Crl.R.P.No. 341 of 2000 2 lawyer notice to the accused intimating the dishonour of the cheque and demanded back the amount. But the accused failed to pay the amount covered by the cheque. Hence the complaint. 3. In the Magistrate Court, Pws. 1 to 4 were examined and Exts.P1 to P8 were marked on the side of the complainant. No evidence was adduced from the defence side. The learned Magistrate, on considering the evidence, found that the accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period of three months. The appeal filed by the accused as Crl.A. No. 72 of 1998 before the Sessions Court, Trichur was dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence. Against that judgment, the accused filed this revision petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the first respondent. 5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the revision petitioner is not challenging the Crl.R.P.No. 341 of 2000 3 conviction of the accused under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and that the only prayer is to reduce the sentence, as the petitioner has already paid the entire amount to the complainant. The learned counsel for the first respondent/complainant submitted that the complainant has already received the entire amount from the accused. 6. The learned Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge, based on the evidence adduced by the complainant, concurrently found that the accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Since that finding is based on evidence on record, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction of the accused under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. As the accused has paid the entire amount to the complainant, I am of the view that a substantive sentence of imprisonment till rising of the Court would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. Crl.R.P.No. 341 of 2000 4 7. Accordingly this revision petition is allowed in part. The conviction of the accused in S.T. 3606 of 1995 on the file of the J.F.C.M., Kunnamkulam under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is confirmed. The sentence is reduced and the accused is sentenced to undergo imprisonment till rising of court. The J.F.C.M., Kunnamkulam is directed to execute the modified sentence. (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm