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. 3331 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.1103/2006 of I ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM STC.84/2005 of JFCM-VII, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): --------------------- M.A. JOHN, S/O. T.P. JOHN APARNA, MANAKATTUKADAVU, PERUKAVU P.O., VILAVOORKAL VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.K.MADHUSOODHANAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT 2. V. BALAGOPAL, SUNITHA BHAVAN, KUDAYALUMUGHAL, NETTAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RITHWIK 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.3331 of 2009 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of October, 2009. ORDER The revision petitioner is the accused in S.T.No.84 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-VII, Thiruvananthapuram. The second 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 four months. He was further directed to pay Rs.60,000/-, 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 three months. In appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge I, Thiruvananthapuram, confirmed the conviction. But the substantive sentence was reduced to one of imprisonment till rising of the court and a fine amount of Rs.60,000/- with default clause to undergo simple imprisonment for another period of one month. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the conviction and sentence, as modified in appeal, this revision petition was filed. Crl.R.P.No.3331 of 2009 2 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and perusing the judgment impugned, I find that the second 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.60,000/- to the first respondent and in discharge of the said liability, Ext.P1 cheque dated 1.8.2002 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.P3 dated 12.10.02, was caused demanding discharge of the liability and it was acknowledged by the revision petitioner as evidenced by Ext.P5, the liability was not discharged. Neither any reply. 3. DW.1 was examined and Ext.D1 was marked on the side of the defence in support of the plea that DW.1 borrowed Rs.15,000/- for which the cheque was given as security. Courts below concurrently disbelieved DW.1 and believed PW.1. I fail to find any material to disturb the concurrent finding. The veracity of the evidence of PW.1 remain unimpeached. I find that the courts below had correctly appreciated the evidence and arrived Crl.R.P.No.3331 of 2009 3 a finding of guilt. The conviction under challenge is unassailable. The appellate court was very lenient in modifying sentence to one of imprisonment till rising of the court and converting the compensation as fine. It requires no interference. I find no error or illegality or impropriety in the impugned judgments. Revision petition is devoid of merits. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. The revision petitioner is granted six months time for payment of fine, 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.