IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2008 / 29TH PHALGUNA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1073 of 2000() ------------------------------ ST.2139/1996 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, MANJERI CRA.66/1999 of SESSIONS COURT, MANJERI .................... REVN. PETITIONER/ACCUSED/APPELLANT: -------------------------------------------------- THONIKKARA KUNHI MOHAMMED, S/o. KOYAKUTTY HAJI, P.O. THACHINGANADAM, (VIA) PATTIKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------ 1. ABRAHAM JOSEPH, S/o. JOSEPH, MANIKKAMPARAMBIL, P.O., THARISH, KARUVARAKUNDU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER , J. ======================= Crl. R.P. No. 1073 of 2000 ======================= Dated this the 18th day of March, 2008 ORDER Petitioner who has been concurrently found guilty under Section 138 for the Negotiable Instruments Act, both by the trial court and the appellate court, has preferred this revision petition. The courts below have concurrently sentenced the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. 2. The case of the respondent/complainant was that the accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.2 Lakhs from him during December 1995 and issued Ext.P1 cheque dated March 1, 1996 towards 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. The statutory demand notice issued by the complainant was returned "unclaimed". The accused did not bother to discharge the liability. Hence the complaint. 3. Before the trial court, the complainant was examined as PW1 and his witnesses were examined as PW2 to 4. Exts.P1 Crl. R.P. No. 1073/2000 -2- to P8 were also marked on the side of the complainant. There was no oral or documentary evidence on the side of the defence. The learned Magistrate after careful evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution had satisfactorily established its case. 4. The case of the accused was that the complainant had advanced the above loan from the unaccounted money available with him and therefore the prosecution case was liable to be repelled and discarded. It was further contended that there was no proper service of the statutory demand notice on him. But as rightly noticed by the courts below, the notice was returned as "unclaimed". PW4, the postman had deposed before the court that intimation of arrival of the postal article was given at the residence of the accused. Inspite of that that the accused had not bothered to accept the postal cover. Though a further contention was raised by the accused that he had not been residing at the address shown on the postal cover, the learned Sessions Judge noticed that the accused had shown the very same address in the cause title of the appeal memorandum. The accused had not made any attempt to adduce evidence to substantiate the facile and untenable contentions raised by him in Crl. R.P. No. 1073/2000 -3- the course of the trial. 5. Significantly, the accused did not dispute his signature in Ext.P1 cheque, nor did he have a case that the complainant had made any alteration as far as the entries in the cheque were concerned. In other words, the accused did not have a case that the cheque amount had been inflated by the complainant. The only contention raised by the petitioner when he was questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was that a false case had been foisted against him. Petitioner could not also have any grievance that he had not been given sufficient opportunity to defend himself, since PW2 and 3 were admittedly recalled and examined at his instance. In short, petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunity to defend the case. The courts below had considered all the relevant materials available on record in their proper perspective. 6. I do not find any material illegality or irregularity in the concurrent order of conviction and sentence passed by the courts below. There is no merit in the revision petition. It is accordingly, dismissed. Crl. R.P. No. 1073/2000 -4- A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE jp