IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI THURSDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2009 / 30TH ASWINA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1342 of 2001(C) ------------------------------- CRA.16/2001 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA ST.2029/1997 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT -I, ALAPPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED --------------------- G.DHANANJAN, S/O GOVINDA PILLAI RAVIMANDIRAM, ATTUVATHALA NEDUMUDI BY ADV. SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT --------------- 1. SATHEESH KUMAR S/O PADMANABHAN AGED 30 YEARS REP. BY HIS MANAGING PARTNER M/S SWAMIES MULLACKAL ALAPPUZHA 2. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M.KAMMAPPU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.Q.BARKATH ALI, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No.1342 OF 2001 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2009 ORDER The revision petitioner is the accused in S.T.No.2029/1997 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court II, Alappuzha and appellant in Crl.Appeal No. 16/2001 of Additional Sessions Court, Alappuzha. The revision petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months by the trial court which is confirmed in appeal. Now the accused has come up in revision challenging his conviction and sentence. 2. The case of the revision first respondent/complainant as testified by him as PW1 and as detailed in the complaint before the trial court was that the accused purchased textiles goods worth Rs. 18,560/- from the firm of complainant and to discharge that liability, the accused issued two cheques Exts.P1 (a) dated 15-2-1997 for Rs. 14,000/- and another cheque P1(b) dated 5-5-1997 for Rs.4,560/- drawn on the Nedumudi branch of Federal Bank which when presented for collection Crl.R.P.No.1342/01 Page numbers was returned dishonoured for want of sufficiency of funds in the account of the accused in the bank and that inspite of the notice - Ext.P4 dated July 19, 1997, the accused did not repay the amount which is an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 3. The learned Magistrate on receipt of the complaint recorded the sworn statement of the complainant PW1 and took cognizance of the case. The accused/revision petitioner on appearance before the trial court pleaded not guilty to the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainant was examined as PW1 and he produced Exts.P1 to P6 before the trial court. When questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by the Magistrate, the accused denied the entire transaction. No defence evidence was adduced. 4. The learned Magistrate on an appreciation of the evidence found the revision petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, convicted him thereunder and sentenced him as aforesaid which is confirmed in appeal. The accused has come up in revision challenging his conviction and sentence. Crl.R.P.No.1342/01 Page numbers 5. The following points arise for consideration : 1) Whether the conviction of the revision petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the trial court which is confirmed in appeal can be sustained ? 2) Whether the sentence imposed is excessive or unduly harsh ? Point No.1 6. Complainant was examined as PW1 and he produced Exts.P1 to P6 to prove his case. He testified in terms of the complaint before the trial court. I have gone through his evidence . I find no suspicious inconsistencies or discrepancies in his evidence so as to discredit his evidence. Further his evidence is supported by Exts.P1 to P6. His evidence was mainly challenged on the ground that he was not the Managing Partner of the company and that therefore not competent to file the complaint. I am unable to agree. Both the courts below have rejected the above contention of the revision petitioner. Further even in the notice Ext.P4, the complainant was described as the Managing Partner. The accused has not chosen to send any reply. Therefore, I am of the view that the lower court is perfectly justified in believing the Crl.R.P.No.1342/01 Page numbers evidence of PW1. Therefore, I confirm the conviction of the revision petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Point No.2 7. As regards the sentence, the trial court sentenced the revision petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for three months which is confirmed in appeal. The transaction is of the year 1997. Therefore, I feel that a sentence of fine of Rs. 18,560/- being the cheque amount would meet the ends of justice. 8. In the result, the Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. Conviction of the revision petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is confirmed. He is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 18560/- , in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. His bail bonds are cancelled. Two month's time is granted for payment of fine amount. Fine amount, if realised, shall be paid to PW1 as compensation as provided under Section 357(1) Cr.P.C. P.Q.BARKATH ALI JUDGE sv. Crl.R.P.No.1342/01 Page numbers Crl.R.P.No.1342/01 Page numbers Crl.R.P.No.1342/01 Page numbers P.Q.BARKATH ALI JUDGE sv. Crl.R.P.No.1342/01 Page numbers P.Q.BARKATH ALI JUDGE sv. Crl.R.P.No.1342/01 Page numbers