IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2008 / 31ST BHADRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 115 of 2001(C) -------------------------------------- CRA.282/1998 of SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR CC.568/1997 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, CHAVAKKAD .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED : --------------------------------------------------------- P.ASHARAF,S/O.MOHAMMED, PAPPADAKARAKATH HOUSE, LINE NO.5, THANNUR P.O., ERARAM, KADAPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.RAMABHADRAN SMT.SANGEETHA LAKSHMANA RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS : ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. SURESH, S/O.MELEVEETTIL PARAMESWARAN, ANAIKKAL DESOM, KANIPPAYOOR VILLAGE, TALAPPILLY TALUK 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, KERALA HIGH COURT, ERNAKULAM BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.KAMMAPPU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 115 of 2001(C) ORDER ON CRL.M.P.NO.482/2001 IN CRL.R.P.NO.115/2001 DISMISSED 22.09.2008 SD/- THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE -TRUE COPY- P.A. TO JUDGE pac THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------ CRL.R.P.No. 115 of 2001 ------------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2008 O R D E R The first respondent filed private complaint against the revision petitioner in the court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate , Chavakkad for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred as 'the Act'). The case of the first respondent is that the revision petitioner borrowed Rs.1,15,500/- from him and for the discharge of that, issued Exhibits P1 to P3. The learned Magistrate found the revision petitioner guilty, convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and payment of compensation of Rs.1,33,000/-. The revision petitioner preferred an appeal to the Sessions Court, Thrissur. The learned Sessions Judge as per judgment dated 29/04/2000 confirmed the conviction, but the substantive sentence was modified as simple imprisonment for 15 days. The revision petitioner was also directed to pay Rs. 1,40,000/- as compensation. The revision petitioner is aggrieved and has come up in revision. 2. The revision petitioner, the first respondent and the counsel CRL.R.P.No. 115 / 2001 2 remain absent. There is no representation. I heard the Public Prosecutor appearing for the 2nd respondent. 3. The point for consideration is whether interference is required with the judgments of the courts below. 4. The first respondent gave evidence as PW1 and stated that he paid Rs.1,15,500/- to the revision petitioner as per three cheques. It was suggested to the first respondent on behalf of the revision petitioner that in respect of a small amount, the first respondent had taken signed blank cheque as security. First respondent denied the suggestion. In fact the evidence of PW2, the Manager of the drawee bank coupled with P10 series would show that Rs.1,15,500/- was transferred from the account of the first respondent to that of the revision petitioner. Courts below found that the contention of the revision petitioner that he had not borrowed Rs.1,15,500/- cannot be sustained. There is little reason to interfere with the finding of the fact entered on the above material. 5. The dishonour of Exhibit P1 to P3 for 'insufficiency of fund' is proved by the first respondent. The revision petitioner was CRL.R.P.No. 115 / 2001 3 intimated about the dishonour and he was called upon to make the payment. He did not pay. No infirmity or illegality is pointed out in the case of the prosecution or the proceedings of the court below requiring interference. 6. So far as the sentence is concerned, considering the nature of the offence and the amount involved and also taking into account the fact that the courts below directed the revision petitioner to pay Rs.1,40,000/-as compensation and in default of payment to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 months, I am satisfied that imprisonment till rising of the court is sufficient. The revision petition is allowed in part in the following lines; 1. The substantive sentence awarded to the revision petitioner as modified by the learned Sessions Judge, is modified as simple imprisonment till the rising of the court. 2. The direction for payment of compensation is confirmed. 3. The revision petitioner is granted three months time to deposit the amount as ordered by the learned Sessions Judge, in the trial court for payment to the first respondent. CRL.R.P.No. 115 / 2001 4 The revision petitioner shall surrender in the trial court on 23/12/2008 to receive the sentence. Bail bond is cancelled. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE scm