IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2009 / 1ST ASWINA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2965 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.241/2006 of ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE(AD HOC-II), KASARAGOD. CC.505/2005 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS-II, KASARAGOD. .................... REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------- C.K.RAHIDA, W/O.MAHIN, BERKA HOUSE, P.O.CHENGALA, KASARAGOD TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.SHIRAZ ABDULLA RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT/STATE -------------------------------- 1. ASMABI, W/O.PUTHABBA, MALIKA COMPOUND, MUSRATH ROAD, THALANGARA, KASARAGOD TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RITHWIK THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2965 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2009 ORDER The revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.505 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Kasaragod. The first respondent herein prosecuted the revision petitioner alleging offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned magistrate after due trial arrived a conclusion of guilt. Consequently the revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year. She was further directed to pay Rs.3,25,000/- as compensation to the first respondent under section 357(3) of the Code of the Criminal Procedure with usual default clause. In appeal the Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc-II), Kasaragod confirmed the conviction but the substantive sentence was reduced to till rising of court, probably on gender consideration. Direction to pay compensation was sustained. 2. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence as was reduced in appeal, this revision petition was filed. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the revision Crl.R.P.No.2965 of 2009 2 petitioner and pursuing the impugned judgment I find that the first respondent who was examined as PW.1 had succeeded to establish that the revision petitioner owed a sum of Rs.3,25,000/- to the first respondent and in discharge of the said liability Ext.P1 cheque dated 15/12/2004 was issued and when Ext.P1 was presented for collection it was returned dishonoured for insufficiency of funds, as evidenced by Exts.P2 and P3 memos. Demanding discharge of the liability, a lawyer notice, copy of which was marked as Ext.P4 dated 17/12/04 was issued. Despite the acknowledgment of the notice the liability was not discharged. The evidence of PW.1 is corroborated by Ext.P1 to P5. It is further corroborated by the legal presumptions under section 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that Ext.P1 was drawn for valuable consideration and issued in discharge of the liability. 4. The defence plea was that Ext.P1 was issued to one Shafi as security. Other than the suggestion when questioned under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the revision petitioner had not cared to adduce any evidence. The result is that there is no evidence at all to controvert the evidence of Crl.R.P.No.2965 of 2009 3 PW.1 or to rebut the legal presumption supporting the evidence adduced by PW.1. The courts below had correctly appreciated the evidence of PW.1 supported by Exts.P1 to P5 and legal presumptions under section 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. I find no error, illegality or impropriety in the judgment under challenge. The conviction is fully supported by the evidence on record. The lower appellate court is very lenient in reducing the sentence. The sentence also requires no modification. 5. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed. However, the revision petitioner is granted six months time for payment of the compensation provided she executes a bod for Rs.20,000/- with 2 solvent sureties each for like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE skj.