IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2010 / 27TH SRAVANA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2906 of 2004() ------------------------------ CRA.478/2003 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC) FAST TRACK COURT NO.1, THRISSUR. ST.4674/2000 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, THRISSUR .................... REVISION PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- SAROJINI KOCHUKUTTAN, W/O. KOCHUKUTTAN, VADAKKOOTTU BHAVAN, KOORKANCHERY VILLAGE, DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.DILIP J. AKKARA RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. RAGHAVAN S/O. PAINUKARAN KARAPPAN, PADIYUM VILLAGE AND DESOM, THRISSUR. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.A.RAJAGOPALAN R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. REKHA C. NAIR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.2906 of 2004. = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 18th day of August, 2010. O R D E R Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Thrissur in ST.No.4674/2000 convicted the revision petitioner for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced the revision petitioner to simple imprisonment for two months and to pay Rs.60,000/- as compensation to the first respondent under Sec.357(3) Crl.PC. In Crl.Appeal No.478/2003, the Addl.Sessions Judge, Adhoc-I, Thrissur while confirming the conviction, reduced the sentence to imprisonment till the rising of the court and ordered to pay Rs.65,000/- as compensation to the first respondent with usual default clause. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the conviction and sentence as modified in appeal, this revision petition was filed. Crl.R.P.No.2906 of 2004. -: 2 :- 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and perusing the judgments under challenge, I find that the first respondent who was examined as Pw1 had succeeded to establish that the revision petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.60,000/- on 29.3.2000 and in discharge of that liability, Ext.P1 cheque drawn on Syndicate Bank, Thrissur branch for the said amount was issued and that when Ext.P1 was sent for collection it was returned dishonoured for insufficient funds as evidenced by Exts.P2 and P3 memos and that demanding discharge of the liability, a lawyer notice, copy of which was marked as Ext.P5 was issued. But the same was returned unclaimed and the liability was not discharged. The revision petitioner has no consistent case regarding the issuance of the cheque. There is no case for the revision petitioner that the first respondent obtained the cheque in any manner other than what was deposed by him. In the above circumstance, I find that the courts below were justified in giving reliance Crl.R.P.No.2906 of 2004. -: 3 :- to the testimony of Pw1 and Ext.P1 to conclude that Ext.P1 cheque was issued by the 1st respondent in discharge of the liability. The evidence of Pw1 on that aspect is supported by the legal presumptions under Sec.118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act which was not even attempted to be rebutted. The evidence of Pw1 that Ext.P1 was dishonoured as evidenced by Exts.P2 and P3 is not at all challenged. The revision petitioner has no case that the notice was sent in a wrong address or that it was returned at the instance of the revision petitioner. So, the courts below were justified in arriving at a conclusion that there was constructive notice, but the liability was not discharged. The prosecution was launched after complying the requisite proceedings. With the above evidence the conviction under challenge is unassailable. 3. The appellate court was very lenient in reducing the sentence to imprisonment till the rising of the court. Even if the appellate court had gone wrong in awarding Crl.R.P.No.2906 of 2004. -: 4 :- sentence, it is only towards leniency. Of course, the compensation was enhanced a little bit. Taking into account of the delay in finality in prosecution, I find that it is also justified. I find no reason to interfere with the sentence as well. The revision petition is devoid of merits. It is accordingly dismissed. The revision petitioner is granted three months time to remit the compensation amount. Till then, the bail bond executed by him shall remain in force. In the event there is any deposit that shall be given credit to. P.S.GOPINATHAN, (Judge) Kvs/-