IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 30TH OCTOBER 2009 / 8TH KARTHIKA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3318 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.538/2006 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR ST.141/2005 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, IRINJALAKUDA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- AMRITHNATH, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, CHERAMPARRAMBIL HOUSE, CHETTIPPARAMBU DESOM, IRINJALAKUDA. BY ADV. SRI.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN SRI.K.S.RAJESH RESPONDENT(S): RSPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------- 1. LOUIS, S/O.POULOSE, MALIKKAL HOUSE, IRINJALAKUDA DESOM VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 2. STATE REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. ---------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.3318 of 2009 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of October, 2009. ORDER The revision petitioner is the accused in S.T.No.141 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Irinjalakuda. The first respondent 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 undergo simple imprisonment for three months. He was further directed to pay Rs.30,000/- the cheque amount as compensation, to the first respondent under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure with default clause to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three months. In appeal, the I Additional Sessions Judge, Thrissur, confirmed the conviction. But the substantive sentence was reduced to imprisonment till rising of the court and compensation of Rs.30,000/- with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for one month. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the conviction and sentence, as modified in Crl.R.P.No.3318 of 2009 2 appeal, this revision petition was filed. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and perusing the judgment impugned, I find that the first respondent, who was examined as P.W.1, supported by Exts.P1 to P6, had succeeded to establish that the revision petitioner owed a sum of Rs.30,000/- to the first respondent and in discharge of the said liability, Ext.P1 cheque dated 29.12.2003 was issued and that when Ext.P1 was sent for collection, it was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds, as evidenced by Ext.P2 memo. Though a lawyer notice, copy of which was marked as Ext.P4 dated 1/1/2004, was caused demanding discharge of the liability and it was acknowledged by the petitioner as evidenced by Ext.P6, the liability was not discharged. Neither any reply. The evidence of PW.1 remains uncontroverted. There is no reason to disbelieve PW.1. I find that the courts below had correctly appreciated the evidence and arrived a finding of guilt. The conviction under challenge is unassailable. The appellate court was very lenient in reducing the sentence of imprisonment to one till rising of the court and compensation. It requires no interference. I find no error or illegality or impropriety in the Crl.R.P.No.3318 of 2009 3 impugned judgment. Revision petition is devoid of merits. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. The revision petitioner is granted two months time for payment of compensation, provided, he executes a bail bond for Rs.15,000/- with two solvent sureties each for like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. The trial court shall see the execution of sentence and report compliance. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE. skj.