IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 17TH MAGHA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 552 of 2001() ----------------------------- CRA.126/1998 of II ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM CC.160/1996 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, KOLLAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER: --------------------------- K. SULOCHANA, W/O. SIVARAJAN, DEEPU NIVAS, PEROOR, T.K.M.C. P.O, KOLLAM – 5. BY ADV. SRI.P.SIVARAJ RESPONDENTS: -------------------- 1. K. BABU, THAZHATTIL HOUSE, THATTARAKONAM CHERI, THRIKKOVILVATTOM VILLAGE. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.NAZAR. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. Basheer, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl. R.P. No. 552 of 2001 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6th day of February, 2008. ORDER Petitioner was prosecuted by respondent No.1 herein for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial court found the petitioner guilty and she was accordingly convicted and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year. But in appeal, the learned Sessions Judge while confirming the order of conviction modified and reduced the sentence to Simple Imprisonment for 3 months. It was further directed that the petitioner shall pay Rs.5,000/- as fine and in default she shall suffer Simple Imprisonment for a further period of one month. The above order of conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Court is under challenge in this revision petition. 2. The case of the complainant was that the accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.45,000/- from him in August 1995. Ext.P1 cheque dated December 20, 1995 was issued by the accused in discharge of the above debt. But when the cheque was presented for encashment it was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the accused. Though a statutory demand notice was issued by the complainant, the debt was not discharged; nor was any reply sent to the notice. It was in the above circumstances that the petitioner was prosecuted by the complainant before the trial court. 3. The complainant was examined as Pw.1 and the Bank Manager was examined as Pw.2. Exts.P1 to P7 were also marked Crl.RP.552/2001 2 on his side. A witness was examined on the side of the defence as Dw.1. The learned Magistrate after an elaborate consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record found that the complainant had satisfactorily established his case and that Ext.P1 cheque was issued by the accused towards discharge of the debt. Though the accused had taken up a defence that Ext.P1 cheque was one of the 4 signed blank cheques handed over by her to one Shajahan, which was misused by the complainant, no satisfactory evidence was let in by the accused to substantiate the above contention. The said Shajahan was not examined; nor was any document produced to show that there was any chit transaction between the accused and Sri.Shajahan as alleged. Though DW.1 was examined in the case she only stated that the complainant had been working in Mangalore for the last several years. The said testimony of Dw.1 did not in any way advance the case of the accused, as rightly found by the learned Magistrate. 4. The learned Sessions Judge had re-evaluated the evidence on record . It was found by the learned Judge that the evidence adduced by the complainant was sufficient enough to prove the guilt of the accused. However learned Sessions Judge took the view that the sentence imposed on the petitioner was a little too severe and harsh. It was therefore that the sentence was reduced to 3 months' Simple Imprisonment, apart from directing the accused to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to press into service a so called compounding petition before this Court. It is not seen to have been signed by the complainant. But according to the Crl.RP.552/2001 3 learned counsel for the accused, the counsel for the complainant before the trial court had agreed to settle the matter on behalf of the complainant and received Rs.5,000/- from the accused. It is admitted by the learned counsel that the said counsel viz., Sri.N.Thulasidharan, Kollam is no more. 6. Though notice had been taken out to respondent No.1/complainant on several occasions, he has not been served so far. The notice sent from this Court to the last known address of the complainant has been returned unserved stating that the “addressee left without instruction”. Petitioner has also produced a certificate issued by a member of the local Grama Panchayat stating that the whereabouts of the complainant is not known for the last several years. Similarly one Sumathy who is stated to be the wife of the complainant is seen to have signed in Annexure A2 affidavit stating that her husband is out of station for the last 9 years. 7. I have carefully perused the materials available on record. Copy of the complaint, lawyer notice as well as the deposition of the complainant and Dw.1 have also been made available by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Having gone through the entire materials available on record, I do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Revision Petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. A.K. Basheer an. Judge.