IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 16TH AUGUST 2011 / 25TH SRAVANA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1500 of 2005() ------------------------------------------- CRA.64/2005 of SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM CC.492/2001 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, KOCHI .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------------------------ GEORGE THARAKAN, AGED 38, S/O.P.V.GEORGE, PROPRIETOR, ACHAN AGENCIES, THARAKAN'S HOUSE, M.G.ROAD, PALLIMUKKU, KOCHI-17. BY ADV. SRI.B.M.AJITH SRI.P.E.THOMAS SRI.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THAVAKKAL EXPORTS PVT. LTD., 39/3488, IIND FLOOR, CHELURE CHEMBERS, RAVIPURAM ROAD, ERNAKAULAM, KOCHI-16, REP. BY DIRECTOR M.A.HAMSAKOYA, AGED 45 AT HOUSE NO.7/178-A, CHEKKAMADAM, KOCHI-5. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADVS. SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE, SRI.M.F.MOHAMMOD SIYAD, SMT.K.SEEMA, SMT.DHIJY MOL.M.D. R2 BY PUBLIC PROPRIETOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/08/2011, ALONG WITH CRRP NO. 1501 OF 2005 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------- Crl.R.P. Nos.1500 & 1501 of 2005 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of August 2011 O R D E R The revision petitioner in both the cases and the first respondent company are the same. The original transaction is also the same. 2. The revision petitioner was acquitted by J.F.C.M.-II, Kochi for the offence punishable under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and he was sentenced to S.I. for six months and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation in both the cases. In the appeals filed by him before the Sessions Judge, the conviction was confirmed but the substantive sentence was reduced to S.I. for one month and directed to pay Rs.65,000/- each as compensation to the complainant company. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner in both the cases would submit that there was no proper consideration of the case put forward by the accused. The Crl.R.P. Nos.1500 & 1501 of 2005 -: 2 :- learned counsel further submitted that the complainant company was not holder in due course and as such the company cannot sustain the complaint under Sec.138 of the N.I.Act. 3. It is a case where both the courts below have analysed the evidence in detail. The evidence would show that when the complainant company had vacated the building which was taken on lease, the value of the items used to furnish the building was ascertained and two cheques were given to the complainant towards the value of those items. It was contended that the lease was with Simi Airlinks and as such the complainant was not entitled to prosecute the accused. But the evidence would show that company had taken equal portion and the cheques were issued to the complainant company as stated earlier. The evidence would show that the cheques were issued against the value of the items used and as such the cheques were issued in discharge of a legally enforceable liability. The contention to the contrary was rightly repelled by the two courts below. All the Crl.R.P. Nos.1500 & 1501 of 2005 -: 3 :- statutory requirements were seen complied with. Hence the conviction in both the cases is confirmed. 4. The learned counsel for the accused/revision petitioner would submit that the compensation amounts awarded by the Sessions Judge have already been deposited in the two cases and so substantive sentence may be reduced. In the result, these revision petitions are disposed of as stated below :- The conviction in both the cases is confirmed. The substantive sentence imposed on the revision petitioner is reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the court. The sentence regarding compensation is confirmed. The revision petitioner will appear before J.F.C.M.-II, Kochi on 22.9.2011 to receive the sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the court. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Jvt