IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 18TH MAY 2010 / 28TH VAISAKHA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1541 of 2010() ------------------------------ CRA.80/2007 of II ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM CC.538/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-III, PUNALUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------------------------ ANIL C. S/O.CHELLAPPAN, VIJAYA SADANAM, MANJADI, THADIKKAD P.O., ARACKAL, ANCHAL, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANTS & STATE ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. G.PUSHPANGADHAN, S/O.GANGADHARAN, KUNNUVILA VEEDU, KAKKODU P.O., PUNALOOR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV.SRI.M.R.VENUGOPAL, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR R2. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ami/ V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1541 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of May, 2010. O R D E R The revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.538/2005 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Punalur and the appellant in Crl.A.No.80/2007 in the court of Second Addl. Sessions Court, Kollam. The offence alleged against him is u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. According to the complainant, the accused borrowed a sum of Rs.16,000/- from the complainant and towards the discharge of the said debt, he had issued the cheque, which when presented for encashment dishonoured. During the trial of the case, the accused adduced his evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1, the complainant himself and documentary evidences such as Exts.P1 to P8. No evidence was adduced from the side of the defence. On the basis of the available materials and evidence, the trial court has found that the complainant has established the case, consequent to which the presumptions u/s.139 of NI Act has to be drawn in favour of the Crl.R.P.No.1541 of 2010 2 complainant. The trial court further found that, though the accused has put up a case that he had no connection with the complainant and never issued Ext.P1 cheque to the complainant, no evidence was adduced to substantiate the above version. According to the accused, he had borrowed some amount from one Jayan and the said amount had repaid to said Jayan and the signed blank cheque obtained by Jayan at the time of obtaining the loan, was not returned to the accused. On the other hand, the said Jayan had entrusted blank cheque with the complainant, who misused the said cheque and preferred the complaint. Absolutely no evidence was adduced to establish the above case. The accused has no case that he had taken any action against the said Jayan for not returning the cheque allegedly entrusted with him. Therefore, I find no illegality in the finding arrived on by the trial court that, the accused failed to rebut the presumptions available in favour of the complainant, as he had established the case against the accused. In the above finding of the trial court and the Crl.R.P.No.1541 of 2010 3 conviction, which approved by the appellate court, there is nothing illegal warranting the interference of this court. Thus, according to me there is no merit in the revision petition. 3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that, the revision petitioner is a coolie and some breathing time may be granted to make the payment, which according to me can be considered in favour of the revision petitioner. In the result, this criminal revision petition is disposed of confirming the conviction recorded by the trial court as well as the lower appellate court and confirming the sentence imposed by the lower appellate court and also the direction to pay the compensation of Rs.16,000/-. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to appear before the trial court on 19.7.2010, to receive the sentence and to make the payment of Rs.16,000/- as compensation, as ordered by the lower appellate court. In case of making default in the compensation amount, the revision petitioner is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months. If there is any failure on Crl.R.P.No.1541 of 2010 4 the part of the revision petitioner, in appearing before the court below as directed above, the trial court is free to take coercive steps for procuring the presence of the revision petitioner and to execute the sentence. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. ami/